^S< 


II  THE  WINNING  OF  H( 


II    JOSEPH  H. CROCKER 


IfW^-'i 


/^^'^'^-^ 


OCT  18  im 


BV  741  .C8 

Crooker,  Joseph  Henry,  185C 

1931.  I 

The  winning  of  religious 

liberty 


BOOKS  BY 

JOSEPH  H.  CROOKER,  D.D. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  TO-DAY.    50  cents  net. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  TO-MORROW.    50  cents 

net. 

SHALL  I  DRINK  ?    $L00  net. 

THE  WINNING  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY. 

$1.50  net. 

THE  WINNING 
OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


THE 

WINNING  OF  RELIGIOUS 
LIBERTY 


OCT  18  1918 


BY  V'^/'V  v^ 

JOSEPH  HENRY  CROOKER,  D.D/<^^0l5|CAL  ^^'^  -" 


Author  of 
*' Shall  I  Drink?''  ''The  Church  of  To-day 
"  The  Church  of  To-morrow  " 


THE  PILGRIM   PRESS 
BOSTON  CHICAGO 


COPTRIOHT   1918 

Bt  JOSEPH  H.  CROOKER 


THE  PILGRIM   PRESS 
BOSTON 


FOREWORD 

Political  freedom  and  religious  freedom 
stand  or  fall  together.  Both  require  organ- 
iza.tion  for  their  development.  Can  the  State 
and  the  Church  flourish  together,  each  inde- 
pendent of  the  other,  yet  in  harmony?  The 
author  of  this  volume  regards  such  a  condi- 
tion of  society  as  the  goal  of  democracy.  He 
seems  to  have  begun  his  work  with  a  study 
of  the  Pilgrims  of  Plymouth  Colony;  then  to 
have  been  led  by  it  to  examine  the  historic 
forces  which  came  to  find  expression  in  the 
common  life  of  that  heroic  band.  His  re- 
searches have  kindled  his  enthusiasm.  They 
have  inspired  him  to  give  this  history  of  re- 
ligious intolerance  and  progress  toward  toler- 
ance the  fascination  of  a  romance.  It  is  a 
long  road  back  from  the  forming  of  a  body 
politic  in  the  Mayflower  to  the  establishment 
of  a  Christian  Church  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus. 
But  the  author  essays  to  traverse  it  so  far  as 
to  be  able  to  conclude  that  *4n  the  present 
world  crisis,  not  Pope  Benedict,  but  an  Ameri- 
can layman,  President  Wilson,  has  given  ex- 
expression  to  the  conscience  of  mankind." 

Our  attention  is  here  mainly  directed  to  the 

vii 


Foreword 

progress  of  religious  liberty  during  the  last 
^YQ.  hundred  years.  It  is  gradually  concen- 
trated on  the  expansion  of  the  principles  of 
the  Pilgrims  through  their  influence  in  creat- 
ing the  American  Commonwealth.  These  prin- 
ciples found  expression  in  the  community  life 
of  companies  of  disciples  of  Christ  separated 
from  the  worldliness  of  the  society  in  which 
they  lived,  from  the  control  of  priests  and 
bishops  as  independent  congregations,  and 
from  the  rule  of  the  State  over  their  religious 
beliefs  and  ways  of  worship  in  fraternal  rela- 
tions with  one  another.  These  principles  also 
tended  to  banish  the  disposition  within  the 
churches  to  persecute  one  another  for  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  religious  affairs. 

Dr.  Crooker  has  enriched  his  book  by  brief 
and  comprehensive  sketches  of  prominent  per- 
sons in  this  march  of  Christ's  followers  toward 
religious  tolerance.  He  has  a  restrained  but 
keen  sense  of  humor  in  his  word  pictures 
illumined  by  genuine  sympathy.  The  reader 
can  almost  see  Eobert  Browne  and  Eoger 
Williams  looking  into  each  other's  eyes,  de- 
tecting mutual  defects  while  sharing  the  noble 
purpose  common  to  both. 

This  book  is  especially  pertinent  for  the 
present  time.  The  world  is  at  war  in  a  struggle 
for  ideals.  Our  country  is  coming  to  be  fore- 
most in  the  fight  for  political  freedom  against 
those   who   recognize  no  necessity  which   re- 

viii 


Foreword 

strains  them  from  imposing  their  opinions  and 
their  rule  upon  the  world.  When  political 
liberty  shall  be  won,  how  long  will  it  be  kept 
unless  religious  liberty  is  maintained  also?  ^ 
The  emancipation  of  society  from  tyranny  and 
the  deliverance  of  the  spirit  of  man  from 
human  authority  imposed  from  without  run 
parallel  in  history.  Here  is  pointed  out  what 
the  spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  has  done  to  banish, 
religious  intolerance  from  the  Christian  world. 
Here  are  indicated  steps  which  may  be  taken 
to  reorganize  the  forces  of  the  community  so 
that  individuals  of  different  ideals  and  convic- 
tions can  live  together  in  religious  relations  as 
peacefully  as  men  of  different  political  convic- 
tions live  together  in  organized  society. 

I  know  of  no  other  recently  published  volume 
which  so  impressively  sets  forth  the  value  of 
the  Congregational  Order  in  its  bearing  on 
the  worship  of  God  and  the  service  of  men. 
It  will  aid  the  average  reader  to  a  fair  judg- 
ment of  leaders  in  ecclesiastical  history  whom 
he  has  been  taught  to  revere  and  those  he  has 
been  directed  to  condemn  because  of  their 
religious  views.  The  liberty  of  mankind  to 
develop  through  the  democratic  spirit  can  be 
secured  only  in  the  direction  indicated  by  the 
trend  of  history  as  described  in  this  volume. 

Ministers  may  do  valuable  service  by  mak- 
ing themselves  familiar  not  only  with  it,  but 
with  the  historical  sources  from  which  its  con- 

ix 


Foreword 

elusions  are  drawn,  and  then  presenting  their 
own  conclusions  to  their  congregations.  It  was 
never  so  important  as  now  that  young  Amer- 
icans should  study  this  movement  of  history. 
This  book  is  an  important  contribution  toward 
finding  ways  to  promote  that  unity  in  society 
and  in  common  worship  and  service  for  which 
through  this  war  new  aspirations  are  awaken- 
ing. For  its  author  discerned  that  the  time 
had  arrived  to  revalue  the  fundamentals  of 
religious  faith,  to  put  nobility  of  character 
before  conformity  of  opinion,  to  simplify  the 
message  of  the  Church,  to  spiritualize  its 
methods,  to  welcome  co-operation  in  good 
works  of  all  men  who  seek  to  do  the  will  of 
God. 

A.  E.  Dunning. 


"The  Congregational  idea,  so  far  as  realized,^ 
cannot  but  nourish  the  finest  tolerance.  There 
are  two  stages  in  the  history  of  tolerance.  The 
first  is  achieved  when  the  pretensions  of  the  State 
to  control  or  check  the  doctrine  or  life  of  the 
Church  have  been  abandoned.  The  second  will 
be  achieved  as  soon  as  there  has  disappeared 
within  the  Church  itself  the  last  trace  of  a  dis- 
position to  persecute  for  differences  of  opinion./ 
Congregationalism  has  borne  a  conspicuous  part 
in  bringing  about  the  former.  It  ought  to  be 
foremost  in  promoting  the  latter." 

Frederick  J.  Powicke, 
in  Henry  Barrow, 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.    THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  MAN 1 

The  cruelties  of  intolerance  and  persecution.  Sur- 
vivals in  recent  times.  They  blacken  many  pages 
of  Christian  history.  Freedom  from  these  in- 
humanities our  greatest  blessing.  Putting  an  end 
to  them  the  noblest  achievement  of  modern  times. 
To  accomplish  this  emancipation  from  stake  and 
rack  required  the  services  and  sacrifices  of  many 
noble  teachers  and  heroic  statesmen.  The  prob- 
lem one  of  the  most  difficult  and  momentous  in 
human  history.  The  importance  of  rehgious  free- 
dom. The  gospel  of  Jesus  provided  Hberty  for  the 
children  of  God.  The  early  churches  were  inde- 
pendent democracies.  Christianity  a  state  religion 
under  Constantine.  This  union  of  Church  and 
State  prepared  the  way  for  the  martyrdom  of  man. 
The  imperial  poHcy  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great  meant 
loss  of  hberty  for  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  Papal 
supremacy  under  Hildebrand  made  untold  miseries 
inevitable.  The  Inquisition  instituted  to  destroy 
heretics.  The  diabolical  machinery  and  its  fright- 
ful ravages.  How  this  martyrdom  of  man  injured 
every  human  interest.  The  Pilgrims  deserve 
honor  and  praise  because  they  helped  to  put  an 
end  to  these  evils. 

II.     EARLY    PROPHETS    AND    PROTESTANT 

FAILURES 33 

The  dawning  of  a  new  day.  The  forces  recreating 
Europe.  Marsilius,  the  earhest  prophet  of  the 
modern  State,  Wichf,  the  morning  star  of  the 
Reformation.  Toleration  as  advocated  by  Sir 
Thomas  More  and  Erasmus,  the  great  humanist. 
Martin  Luther.  His  important  services  and  serious 
defects.  The  glory  and  the  shame  of  John  Calvin. 
Servetus  and  Calvin.  The  contribution  of  the 
Itahan,  Faustus  Socinus.  A  neglected  apostle  of 
religious  freedom:  the  Hungarian,  Francis  David. 
A  tolerant  ruler:  William  of  Orange.  Various 
Protestant  persecutions.  Substantial  progress  but 
the  way  of  escape  from  the  martyrdom  of  man 
not  yet  found. 


Contents 

PAGE 

III.  THE  INDEPENDENT  CONGREGATION 91 

The  early  reformers  missed  the  New  Testament 
teaching.  From  sacrificial  to  educational  methods 
in  religion.  The  supreme  discovery  in  rehgious 
ideal  and  organization.  The  Anabaptists:  some 
saints  but  others  fanatics.  The  emancipator,  Rob- 
ert BrowTie.  What  the  father  of  Congregational- 
ism discovered.  The  way  to  a  radical  and  benefi- 
cent revolution  in  the  Church.  What  the  Sep- 
aratists represented.  A  method  productive  of 
spirituality,  growth,  freedom.  Browne's  influence. 
The  contribution  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  The  teach- 
ings of  John  Milton.  Independents  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  The  Quakers,  George  Fox  and 
Wilham  Penn.  A  broad  Anghcan  churchman. 
John  Locke,  the  advocate  of  religious  freedom. 
The  eloquent  protest  of  Voltaire.  Joseph  Priestley, 
a  prophet  broader  than  Locke.  Separation  of 
Church  and  State  to  end  the  martyrdom  of  man. 

IV.  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  AMERICA 155 

The  EngUsh  beginnings.  The  exiles  in  Holland 
under  the  saintly  Robinson.  The  Pilgrims  at 
Plymouth.  They  were  neither  Puritans  nor  per- 
secutors. Their  influence  upon  early  New  Eng- 
land. The  Massachusetts  theocracy.  The  case  of 
Roger  Williams.  John  Cotton  and  the  Congrega- 
tional way.  The  Cambridge  platform:  a  charter 
of  church  liberties.  The  persecution  of  Quakers 
and  Baptists.  Contemporary  persecutions  in  Eu- 
rope and  in  other  American  colonies.  Liberal  ten- 
dencies in  Massachusetts.  John  Wise,  the  father 
of  American  democracy.  The  influence  of  the 
Revolution  upon  religious  liberties.  America's  in- 
fluence upon  the  world.  What  was  the  Pilgrim 
glory? 

APPENDIX:     RELIGIOUS     FREEDOM     IN     FIVE 

AMERICAN  COLONIES 247 

I.     Maryland 
II.    New  York 

III.  Pennsylvania 

IV.  North  Carolina 
V.    Virginia 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  MAN 


DANIEL  WEBSTER  ON   RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

'^'"'^The  love  of  religious  liberty  is  a  stronger  sentiment, 
when  fully  excited,  than  an  attachment  to  civil  or  politi- 
cal  freedom.      That  freedom  which  the  conscience  de- 

Tnands,  and  which  men  feel  bound  by  their  hope  of 
salvation  to  contend  for,  can  hardly  fail  to  be  attained. 
Conscience,  in  the  cause  of  religion  and  the  worship  of 
the  Deity,  prepares  the  mind  to  act  and  to  suffer  beyond 
almost  all  other  causes.  It  sometimes  gives  an  impulse 
so  irresistible,  that  no  fetters  of  power  or  of  opinion 
can  withstand  it.  History  instructs  us  that  this  love  of 
religious  liberty,  a  compound  sentiment  in  the  breast 
of  man,  made  up  of  the  clearest  sense  of  right  and  the 
highest  conviction  of  duty,  is  able  to  look  the  sternest 
despotism  in  the  face,  and,  with  means  apparently  most 
inadequate,  to  shape  principalities  and  powers.  There 
is  a  boldness,  a  spirit  of  daring,  in  religious  reformers, 
not  to  be  measured  by  the  general  rules  which  control 
men's  purposes  and  actions.  If  the  hand  of  power  be 
laid  upon  it,  this  seems  only  to  augment  its  force  and 
its  elasticity,  and  to  cause  its  action  to  be  more  for- 
midable and  violent.  Human  invention  has  devised 
nothing,  human  power  has  compassed  nothing,  that  can 
forcibly  restrain  it,  when  it  breaks  forth.  Nothing  can 
stop  it,  but  to  give  way  to  it;  nothing  can  check  it,  but 
indulgence.  It  loses  its  power  only  when  it  has  gained 
its  object.  The  principle  of  toleration,  to  which  the 
world  has  come  so  slowly,  is  at  once  the  most  just  and 
the  most  wise  of  all  principles.  Even  when  religious 
feeling  takes  a  character  of  extravagance  and  enthusi- 
asm, and  seems  to  threaten  the  order  of  society  and 
shake  the  columns  of  the  social  edifice,  its  principal 
danger  is  in  its  restraint.  If  it  be  allowed  indulgence 
and  expansion,  like  the  elemental  fires,  it  only  agitates, 
and  perhaps  purifies,  the  atmosphere;  while  its  efforts 
to  throw  off  restraint  would  burst  the  world  asunder." 
Address  at  Plymouth:  1820. 
2 


THE  WINNING 
OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  MAN 

The  denial  of  civil  rights  to  people  who  hold) 
religious  opinions  contrary  to  those  in  au- 
thority has  been  a  common  practice  among 
Christian  and  non-Christian  peoples.  Gov- 
ernments have  often  disfranchised  Jews,  Prot- 
estants, Catholics,  or  Unitarians,  making  them 
incapable  of  holding  office,  denying  them  free- 
dom of  education  and  worship,  and  leav- 
ing them  with  no  personal  sanctities  or 
privileges  which  any  one  must  respect.  The 
unbeliever  in  some  mystical  proposition  be- 
yond the  range  of  observation  and  unrelated 
to  human  conduct,  has  been  reviled  as  an  enemy 
of  God  and  punished  as  a  menace  to  civilization. 
Intolerance  has  blotted  the  history  of  almost 
every  Christian  denomination.  With  this  hate- 
ful spirit  of  intolerance  has  worked  in  all  lands 
the  fiercest  and  most  cruel  passions.  Nobility 
of  character  has  been  no  protection  against  its 
raging  wrath.  Public  services  of  purest  patriot- 

3 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ism  and  highest  human  value  have  not  availed 
to  turn  aside  its  poisoned  arrows  of  malignity. 
The  innocence  of  youth  and  the  sanctity  of  age 
have  not  restrained  the  inhumanity  visited  upon 
those  whose  differences  of  belief  were  so  ob- 
scure as  to  be  almost  incapable  of  description. 
>"  The  story  of  religious  persecution  fills  many 

^  pages  of  ancient  and  modern  history,  and  they 
are  the  blackest  pages  of  all.  Nowhere  else  has 
the  inhumanity  of  man  to  man  been  so  cruel  as 
in  the  realm  of  religion.  The  most  fiendish  in- 
genuities have  been  used  in  inflicting  torture 
upon  heretics.  Churchmen  have  vied  with 
statesmen  in  inventing  agencies  for  causing 
excruciating  agonies  by  which  to  punish  un- 
believers and  compel  men  and  women  to  deny 
their  faith.  Of  all  punishments  described  in 
the  annals  of  nations  the  most  diabolical  are 
those  applied  by  papal  inquisitors  and  Protes- 
tant persecutors.  Nothing  else  seems  so  re- 
volting, so  inexcusable. 

These  horrors  have  come  down  even  to  recent 
times.  In  England,  during  the  spring  of  1612, 
only  a  year  after  King  James'  Version  of  the 
Bible  appeared,  in  days  made  illustrious  by 

\  Shakespere  and  Bacon,  Bartholomew  Legate 
and  Edward  Wightman  were  burned  at  the 
stake,  being  charged  with  erroneous  opinions 
about  the  Trinity.  On  March  9,  1762,  the  Prot- 
estant, Jean  Galas,  was  tortured,  broken  alive 
on  the  wheel  and  burned,  at  Toulouse,  France, 

4 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

being  accused  of  murdering  his  son  for  becom- 
ing a  Catholic:  it  was  established  by  the  high- 
est judicial  authority  that  he  had  committed 
suicide.  This  awful  crime  against  humanity 
(with  others  like  it)  stirred  Voltaire  to  under- 
take his  glorious  crusade  against  **L'infame'': 
the  spirit  of  intolerance  and  persecution.  On 
the  eve  of  the  American  Ee volution,  James 
Madison,  then  a  young  man,  was  moved  to  hot 
indignation  by  seeing  an  estimable  Baptist 
minis,ter  in  a  jail,  where  he  had  long  been  con- 
fined. And  for  what  crime?  Simply  for 
preaching  the  Gospel!  In  Virginia  at  that 
time  it  was  illegal  for  anyone,  not  an  Episcopal 
clergyman,  to  conduct  a  religious  service. 
Soon  after,  he  expressed  his  detestation  of  such 
conditions  in  these  words  in  a  letter  to  a  friend : 
^^That  diabolical,  hell-conceived  principle  of 
persecution.''  Multitudes  of  similar  cases 
burden  the  pages  of  comparatively  recent 
history. 

But  the  fires  of  the  stake,  so  frequent  and 
awful  only  a  few  years  ago,  no  longer  burn. 
The  instruments  of  torture,  used  only  two  or 
three  centuries  ago  in  the  most  civilized  lands, 
now  rest  in  museums  of  antiquities.  The  cries 
of  agony  which  at  no  distant  day  disturbed  the 
peace  of  Smithfield  and  Oxford,  Geneva  and 
Leiden,  are  no  longer  heard:  the  spirit  that 
worked  in  the  breasts  of  Bloody  Mary,  John 
Calvin,  and  Philip  II.  has  vanished.    The  dif- 

5 


The    Winning    of   Religious   Liberty 

ferences  between  human  society  then  and  now 
are  great  and  numerous.  The  progress  made 
in  recognition  of  human  rights,  in  growth  of 
religious  appreciation,  in  the  emancipation  of 
mankind  from  many  of  the  worst  passions  that 
ever  disgraced  Church  and  State,  is  simply 
indescribable.  The  flood  of  tears  stopped  and 
the  multitude  of  smiles  produced,  the  miseries 
ended  and  the  joys  created  by  the  transition 
from  intolerance  to  freedom,  from  persecution 
to  sympathy  in  religion  are  beyond  calculation. 
And  the  question  presses  for  an  answer:  By 
what  method  has  this  progress  been  won!  To 
whom  are  our  reverent  thanks  due  for  the 
numberless  blessings  which  we  enjoy? 

We  can  understand  how  people  should  highly 
value  their  own  belief  and  sacrifice  to  spread 
it  throughout  the  earth.  It  is  also  easy  to  un- 
derstand how  a  man  may  look  with  disfavor 
and  even  alarm  upon  a  religious  opinion  radi- 
cally unlike  his  o^YTi.  But  how  any  sane  and 
sympathetic  person  can  hold  that  his  faith  is 
the  one  and  only  infallible  revelation  from  God 
and  that  all  unbelievers  in  it  shall  everlastingly 
perish;  that  he  is  doing  God's  will  in  the 
noblest  manner  when  he  visits  with  contempt, 
hatred,  disfellowship,  and  persecution,  his 
brother  who  differs  with  him  on  obscure  points 
of  doctrine;  that  he  is  warranted  in  denying 
the  unbeliever  in  his  own  creed  all  human 
rights  and  handing  him  over  to  torture  here 

6 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

and  to  the  wrath  of  God  hereafter, — all  this 
seems  utterly  remote  from  present  ways  of 
thought  and  horribly  inhuman  to  the  conscience 
of  this  age. 

In  this  difference  of  attitude  and  spirit,  we 
see  abundant  evidence  of  radical  mental  change 
and  vast  moral  progress.  Nowhere  else  has 
there  ever  been  a  greater  or  more  beneficent 
ethical  advance  than  what  is  evident  at  this 
point:  a  profound  transition  in  the  ideals  and 
habits  of  human  life  which  has  changed  the 
character  of  civilization  itself  and  reshaped 
the  message  and  method  of  religion.  And  in 
view  of  all  this  the  question  faces  us  with  great 
urgency:  What  influences  co-operated  to  pro- 
duce these  changes?  What  prophets  taught 
and  what  heroes  fought  to  bestow  these 
precious  blessings  upon  us? 

To  answer  this  question  means  a  long  story ; 
but  it  is  an  interesting  and  an  important  story. 
Here  is  one  of  the  largest  and  gravest  prob- 
lems with  which  Churchman  and  Statesman, 
educator  and  philosopher,  have  struggled  for 
many  centuries:  How  to  reorganize  human 
society  so  that  intolerance  shall  cease  and  per- 
secution disappear;  how  to  relate  piety  and 
patriotism  so  that  sectarianism  shall  not  cor- 
rupt government  nor  politics  degrade  faith; 
how  to  free  religion  from  the  passions  that 
have  perverted  its  life,  wasted  its  substance, 
and  disgraced  its  history;    how  to  guarantee 

7 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

freedom  to  the  soul,  so  that  no  secular  arm  or 
ecclesiastical  inquisitor  shall  punish  honest 
doubt  or  deny  the  expression  of  sincere  belief; 
how  to  liberate  the  Gospel  from  tyrannical 
king  and  intolerant  priest,  rationalizing  re- 
ligion, spiritualizing  patriotism,  and  humaniz- 
ing civilization;  in  other  words,  how  to  estab- 
lish in  both  Church  and  State,  a  homo-centric 
order  that  shall  guarantee  and  foster  the 
humanity  of  man:  all  souls  free  to  grow  in 
wisdom  and  worship ;  in  reverence,  reason,  and 
righteousness ;  and  no  soul  coerced  or  punished 
on  account  of  some  peculiarity  of  faith.  The 
story  of  this  emancipation  of  the  spirit  of  man 
makes  one  of  the  most  thrilling  chapters  of 
human  history. 

The  problem  here  under  discussion  was  far 
larger  and  more  important  than  the  mere  put- 
ting a  stop  to  the  misery  and  bloodshed  caused 
by  persecutions,  and  even  that  achievement 
has  been  most  glorious.  From  the  side  of  gov- 
ernment, this  problem  ranks  next  in  importance 
to  the  slow  evolution  of  methods  and  agencies 
for  the  protection  of  life  and  property:  the 
science  and  administration  of  law  in  general. 
The  solution  of  this  problem  meant  the  pro- 
tection of  man,  not  simply  in  his  material 
properties  but  in  his  spiritual  estate;  not 
simply  freedom  to  exist  as  a  citizen  of  the 
world  but  to  live  as  the  child  of  God.  The 
State  has  gained  efl&ciency  in  its  own  proper 

8 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

realm  by  ceasing  to  attempt  the  supervision 
of  beliefs :  a  task  for  which  it  has  no  fitness. 
Modern  history  clearly  shows  that  when  the 
State  leaves  theology  and  the  Church  alone,  'i 
not  only  does  the  horror  and  waste  of  persecu- 
tion cease,  but  civil  government  is  then  far 
better  able  to  do  its  own  specific  work.  Again, 
the  State,  by  forcing  uniformity  of  religious 
opinion,  drives  into  opposition  or  loses  the 
support  of  many  of  its  best  citizens :  Spain,  by 
its  blundering  intolerance,  lost  its  most  scien- 
tific minds;  France,  by  the  revocation  of  the 
Edict  of  Nantes  (1685),  sent  into  exile  its  most 
skilful  citizens;  Bishop  Laud  drove  across  the 
Atlantic  into  New  England  thousands  of  con- 
scientious people  whose  loss  was  a  calamity  to 
England. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  religion,  the 
granting  of  freedom  stands  next  in  importance 
to  the  transformation  of  the  religious  life  from 
a  sacrificial  to  an  educational  administration: 
the  victory  of  reason  over  superstition,  of 
spirituality  over  materialism,  of  social  train- 
ing over  temple  rites,  of  ethical  ideals  over 
bloody  offerings,  of  soul  culture  over  priestly 
magic,  of  a  glad  approach  to  God  through  the 
heart  over  the  fears  seeking  blindly  to  propi- 
tiate him  at  some  altar.  How  this  ever  widen- 
ing divine  dispensation  proceeded  from  ancient 
Jewish  Synagogue  to  Modern  Congregational 
Church  is  an  interesting  and  inspiring  story. 

9 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

But  only  passing  allusion  can  be  made  to  it 
here:  later  a  more  extended  discussion  of  this 
important  matter  will  be  presented.     (Chapter 

III.) 

The  point  to  be  emphasized  at  present  is 
this:  To  understand  our  heritage  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  and  the  wide  sweep  of  re- 
ligious freedom  spreading  through  the  world, 
we  must  appreciate  those  vast  historic  forces 
which  worked  through  the  Pilgrims;  and  to 
understand  the  Pilgrims,  we  must  appreciate 
what  spirited  insights,  what  mighty  enthusi- 
asms, what  heroic  sacrifices  came  to  expression 
in  that  small  but  immortal  band. 

The  evils  of  the  policy  of  intolerance  and 
persecution  in  religion  are  far  more  than  the 
sufferings  imposed  upon  individuals.  This 
policy  injures  religion  as  a  ** corporate  life.'* 
It  produces  an  atmosphere  fatal  to  the  freely 
expanding  life  of  the  congregation.  Jesus  was 
the  product  of  the  prophetic  spirit  of  the  Syna- 
gogue. His  spirit  and  ideal  first  expressed  it- 
self in  the  free  congregations  of  apostolic 
times.  Only  in  such  free  congregations  can  his 
Gospel  come  to  noblest  fruitage.  Whatever 
limits  the  freedom  of  the  congregation  or 
carries  the  Church  back  to  the  sacrificial  form 
of  religion  represents  a  departure  from  the 
true  Christian  ideal. 

The  policy  of  intolerance  and  persecution,  by 
destroying  freedom  and  arresting  growth  has 

10 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

turned  the  Church  away  from  its  original  con- 
gregational organization  to  the  sacrificial  type. 
In  this  way  it  has  fostered  retrogression 
rather  than  progress :  a  return  to  superstitions 
instead  of  an  expansion  of  the  spiritual  life  of 
man  along  educational  lines,  individual  and 
corporate.  It  was  therefore  inevitable  that  the 
exponents  of  this  drastic  and  inhuman  policy 
should,  nearly  always,  have  belonged  to  the 
sacrificial  parties  in  Christendom:  the  Catho- 
lic, to  whom  the  sacrificial  mass  is  the  center 
and  essence  of  salvation,  and  to  the  sacerdotal 
churches  of  Protestantism,  by  whom  the  con- 
gregational life  is  neglected. 

If  the  congregation  is  to  grow  in  grace,  ex- 
pand in  spiritual  power,  respond  to  the  widen- 
ing vision  of  truth,  and  obey  the  teachings  of 
Providence,  it  must  be  free.  Religion,  as  a 
spiritual  evolution  of  the  private  soul,  and  also 
as  the  expansion  of  the  corporate  life  of  the 
congregation,  cannot  thrive,  if  poisoned  by  in- 
tolerance and  coerced  by  persecution.  Only  by 
emancipating  the  local  company  of  believers 
from  these  hateful  and  harmful  bonds  can  they 
be  placed  in  the  freely  expanding  ways  of  the 
Spirit  which  mean  beauty  and  power,  holiness 
and  service. 

What  then  had  to  be  done, — one  of  the  master 
problems  of  modern  times, — was  not  simply  to 
stop  punishing  and  killing  people  for  differ- 
ences of  religious  belief — glorious  as  that  was 

11 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

— ^but  to  devise  some  method  by  which  a  vastly 
greater  good  could  be  achieved,  namely:  to 
enable  people  with  different  ideals  and  convic- 
tions to  live  together  in  the  religious  world  on 
terms  of  friendly  appreciation  and  co-opera- 
tion, such  as  exist  in  the  best  civic  and  social 
life.  It  was  necessary  to  organize  the  religious 
life  of  the  community  so  that  the  individual  can 
move  freely,  without  fear  or  coercion,  along  the 
line  of  his  own  thought  and  feeling,  frank  with 
others  and  sincere  with  himself:  to  make  it 
possible  for  man  to  live  his  own  life  with  no 
shadow  of  stake  and  gibbet  falling  across  his 
pathway  and  no  creaking  of  chains  or  rack 
sounding  in  his  ears:  never  compelled  to  con- 
sider what  is  merely  popular,  politic,  or  per- 
missible, buit  only  what  is  true,  just,  and 
helpful. 

What,  therefore,  had  to  be  done,  to  stop  the 
Martyrdom  of  Man,  was  to  reinterpret  and  re- 
organize the  religious  life,  so  that  men  of  dif- 
feriQg  faiths  would  come  to  realize  that  specu- 
lative opinions  are  not  the  deepest  or  most 
precious  things  and  that  the  realm  of  religion 
is  above  all  the  place  where  openness  of  mind, 
charitableness  of  spirit,  and  brotherliness  of 
action  are  most  needed. 

A  great  problem,  indeed,  to  the  solution  of 
which  the  cries  of  the  agonizing  victims  of  per- 
secution began,  at  the  dawn  of  our  modern  era, 
to  call  impressive  attention  and  demand  im- 

12 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

mediate  action.  Men  came  to  see  that  there 
must  be  a  readjustment  of  the  relations  of 
Church  and  State  in  order  to  put  an  end  to 
these  e\n-ls;  that  there  must  be  some  new 
rating  of  the  values  of  the  elements  of  religion, 
putting  nobility  of  character  above  conformity 
of  opinion  and  placing  the  simple  pieties  of 
the  heart  higher  than  abstruse  dogmas;  that 
the  Church  itself  must  be  so  reorganized  that 
it  would  simplify  its  message  and  spiritualize 
its  methods  to  the  end  that  the  soul  might 
freely  grow  in  grace  and  the  congregation  en- 
gage more  largely  in  good  works;  and  also, 
that  a  new  fellowship  might  be  created  among 
the  churches  themselves,  so  that  the  scandals 
of  sectarianism  should  cease  and  so  that  the 
friends  of  God  should  present  a  solid  front, 
not  only  in  the  warfare  against  sin,  but  also 
in  all  the  ministries  for  the  relief  of  suffering. 


II 

In  order  to  see  what  had  to  be  done  to  bring- 
about  the  great  deliverance  and  to  give  man 
freedom  to  grow  in  religion  as  in  other  depart- 
ments of  life,  the  original  Christian  ideal  must 
be  briefly  defined  and  then  the  departure  from 
it  during  many  centuries  must  be  still  more 
briefly  indicated. 

Jesus  declared  that  his  kingdom  was  not  of 
13 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

this  world.  He  probably  meant  that  what  he 
had  in  mind  was  a  spiritual  character  rather 
than  a  political  regime.  He  described  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  in  terms  of  Inner  Life.  The 
Gospel  which  he  lived  and  taught  was  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood  of 
man.  He  affirmed  that  salvation  is  life  in  the 
spirit,  spending  itself  in  service:  repentance 
its  beginning,  purity  its  condition,  love  its 
motive,  growth  its  method,  fruitfulness  its 
test,  character  its  organic  expression,  peace 
its  reward.  It  is  not  given  as  a  privilege  or 
monopoly  to  a  few,  but  all  are  invited  to  share 
it  on  equal  terms.  To  possess  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  nothing  is  required  except  what  the 
private  heart  can  accomplish.  No  means  need 
be  used  except  the  exercise  of  the  poAvers  be- 
longing to  man  as  a  man, — inherent  in  him  as 
a  child  of  God.  The  one  thing  that  Jesus  most 
clearly  and  forcibly  taught,  what  made  his 
teaching  glad  tidings,  was  the  great  truth  that 
no  temple  rite  or  priestly  service  is  necessary 
to  enable  man  to  reach  the  fellowship  and 
benediction  of  God.  Let  man  open  his  heart 
in  love,  mercy  and  forgiveness,  and  the  Father 
will  enter  to  hear  and  bless. 

Jesus  used  no  force  to  establish  his  Gospel; 
he  appealed  solely  to  the  love  and  reason  of 
the  individual.  He  asked  no  favors  of  kings 
to  spread  this  new  life.  It  would  develop  like 
leaven  and  triumph  by  its  own  inherent  power. 

14 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

He  sought  no  soldier  to  protect  the  truth  from 
destruction;  it  was  supreme  because  enthroned 
in  the  heart.  He  devised  no  political  ma- 
chinery to  institute  the  kingdom  among  men; 
it  was  mightier  than  throne  or  temple.  And 
yet,  strange  to  say,  upon  his  mere  remark  to 
Simon  (Matt.  XVI,  18-19),  calling  him  a 
^^rock,''  and  promising  to  give  him  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  his  followers,  some 
centuries  later,  built  the  fabric  of  a  vast  priest- 
hood, whose  head,  the  Pope,  presumed  to  com- 
mand the  rulers  of  states  to  do  his  bidding,  not 
only  in  matters  of  religion,  but  also  in  all 
secular  affairs. 

On  this  notable  passage  the  following  state- 
ments need  to  be  made:  The  language  is  for- 
eign to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  who  constantly 
spoke  of  the  Kingdom  as  a  realm  of  life  and 
love,  not  of  a  Church  as  a  realm  of  authority. 
The  words  are  plainly  the  dialect  of  a  later  age. 
The  original  thought  has  been  lost  or  obscured 
in  transmission :  the  teaching  reshaped  to  meet 
subsequent  ecclesiastical  conditions.  This  in- 
ference is  confirmed  by  the  reading  of  Tatian 
(170)  in  his  Diatessaron:  ^'Thou  art  Peter 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
thee," — a  natural,  personal  encouragement 
which  fits  into  the  conditions  which  then  ex- 
isted. Moreover,  how  could  Jesus,  who  taught 
that  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world  (John 
XVIII,  36),  give  Peter  a  commission  to  rule 

15 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

the  world!     This  does  violence  to  the  whole 
spirit  of  his  life  and  message. 

The  explicit  statements  of  Paul  prove  that 
Peter  held  no  such  rank  (James  the  brother  of 
Jesus  was  head  of  the  Apostolic  Church  at 
Jerusalem),  and  he  is  supported  by  New  Testa- 
ment texts,  by  early  tradition,  and  by  later 
historical  testimony.  Moreover,  the  popes 
slowly  acquired  their  authority  against  the 
protests  of  powerful  opponents,  who  appealed 
to  ancient  customs  which  contradicted  these 
aggressions  of  Eome;  and  to  maintain  their 
ambitions  the  bishops  of  Eome  used  means  and 
methods  which  violated  every  command  of  the 
Master.  Popes  have  often  set  aside  the  '*  in- 
fallible decrees''  of  their  predecessors.  They 
have  never  at  any  time  been  able  to  rule  more 
than  a  fraction  of  Christendom.  Today,  schol- 
ars and  scientists,  statesmen,  philanthropists, 
and  teachers  of  ethics,  pay  little  or  no  heed  to 
their  encyclicals.  In  the  present  world-crisis, 
jiot  Pope  Benedict,  but  an  American  layman, 
President  Wilson,  has  given  expression  to  the 
eonscience  of  mankind. 

The  brief  discussion  of  this  matter  may 
seem,  not  only  unimportant,  but  remote  from 
the  subject  of  these  pages.  But  this  brief  re- 
view is  necessary  for  two  reasons:  (1)  We 
need  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  transfer  of 
the  emphasis  of  the  Church  from  service  to- 
authority  was  a  veritable  corruption  of  Chris- 

16 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

tianity.  (2)  It  is  important  to  realize  that  it 
was  this  assertion  of  ** authority"  over  the 
thoughts  and  beliefs  of  men  that  led  to  the 
terrible  Martyrdom  of  Man  which  we  are  con- 
sidering. It  was  in  this  brief  text,  so  fatally 
misused,  that  the  Papal  Hierarchy  claimed  to 
find  warrant  for  its  persecutions.  So  that, 
to  set  this  subject  clearly  before  our  minds 
in  the  light  of  historic  truth  is  the  prerequisite 
to  the  understanding  of  the  origin  and  nature 
of  the  inhumanities  which  we  are  studying. 

For  a  long  time,  the  Christian  Churches 
remained  true  to  the  ideal  of  their  Master,  as 
stated  in  the  words:  **Eender,  therefore,  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's  and  unto 
God  the  things  that  are  God's.''  How  much 
better  it  would  have  been  if  this  policy  could 
have  been  continued  through  the  centuries: 
absolute  separation  of  Church  and  State! 
Though  often  persecuted  (not  however  so 
much  for  their  faith,  but  because  as  ''secret 
societies,"  which  were  prohibited  by  law,  they 
were  considered  dangerous  to  the  Empire), 
Christians  stood  apart  from  political  affairs, 
the  churches  attending  strictly  to  their  own 
functions  and  ministries  as  religious  bodies. 
They  were  engaged  in  teaching  men  and  women 
to  be  disciples  of  Jesus,  conducting  a  spiritual 
worship,  educating  old  and  young  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Gospel,  and  training  people  in  aU 
manner  of  good  works.    They  did  not  meddle 

17 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

in  state  matters,  but  in  making  good  citizens 
for  the  Kingdom  of  God  they  were  also  making 
the  best  citizens  for  the  Eoman  Empire. 

These  churches,  for  many  years,  were  little 
independent  democracies,  with  no  special  dis- 
tinctions between  laity  and  clergy:  there  were 
no  real  clerical  orders  for  a  long  time.  Their 
officers  were  elective,  and  subject  to  removal 
by  popular  vote.  The  various  churches  were 
bound  together  by  brotherly  feelings,  but  no 
coercion  was  exercised  by  one  church  over 
others. 

in 

<  By  the  end  of  the  third  century,  however, 
ty  Christianity  had  become  a  compact  organiza- 
!  tion,  embracing  large  numbers  of  people,  hold- 
ing extensive  possessions,  maintaining  many 
schools  and  charities,  rejoicing  in  great 
scholars  and  skilful  leaders.  It  had  become  too 
powerful  to  be  longer  ignored.  As  evidence  of 
its  prominence  in  the  Empire,  came  the  cele- 
brated Edict  of  Milan  in  313.  This  Edict 
granted  freedom  of  worship  to  all,  not  only  to 
Christian  but  to  all  forms  of  faith;  and  yet, 
the  law  did  not  secure  what  we  at  present  un- 
derstand by  religious  liberty.  It  did,  however, 
stop  the  persecution  of  Christians,  and  it  gave 
Christians  full  legal  protection.  In  321, 
Constantine  legalized  the  bequests  made  to 
"  ^— '  18 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

Christian  Churches,  and  commanded  the  civil 
observance  of  Sunday;  and  in  323,  he  ordered 
the  effigies  of  heathen  gods  erased  from  the 
imperial  coins.  Thus,  this  first  Christian 
Emperor,  Constantine,  by  his  Edicts  near  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  slipped  Chris- 
tianity into  the  position  of  a  state  religion 
(324),  which  the  worship  of  the  Eoman  Em- 
peror had  long  occupied.  Christianity  had  now 
conquered  the  Eoman  world,  but  the  worldly 
spirit  had  also,  in  many  respects,  conquered  the_ 
churches. 

Within  a  few  years  after  toleration  was 
granted  them  and  the  Christian  Faith  had 
become  the  established  religion  of  the  Empire, 
Christians  themselves  began  to  use  force  to 
support  their  views,  and  heresy  (erroneous 
belief)  became  a  crime  punishable  by  death. 
From  the  first,  even  in  apostolic  days,  there  had 
been  different  parties  within  the  churches; 
and  later,  different  sectarian  churches.  And 
these  warring  factions  early  began  to  hurl 
anathemas  back  and  forth  with  great  bitter- 
ness, but  naturally  there  were  no  persecutions 
of  Christians  by  Christians  until  Christianity 
itself  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Caesars.  Or 
what  would  be  a  truer  statement:  until  men 
professing  to  be  disciples  of  Jesus  became  . 
emperors.  j 

Thus  the  Church  was  first  the  ward;  then^ 
in  after  ages,  the  master  of  the  State.    The  in- 

19 


/ 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

terests  of  Christianity  now  became  the  subject 
and  concern  of  statecraft.  The  emperor  de- 
cided what  was  the  true  faith,  and  he  punished 
those  who  believed  otherwise  with  banishment, 
confiscation,  or  dearth. 
/^  In  385,  Emperor  Maximus,  who  ruled  in  the 
West,  condemned  to  death  Priscillian  (accused 
of  advocating  mystical  opinions  akin  to 
Gnosticism)  and  six  of  his  followers  at  Treves ; 
the  first  death  penalty  inflicted  by  Christians 
for  mere  heresy,  under  the  Theodosian  law 
against  heretics.  But  the  true  spirit  of  the 
Master  still  survived  in  some  breasts,  for 
Bishop  Martin  of  Tours  sent  a  vigorous  pro- 
test against  the  cruel  act  to  the  Emperor,  and 
he  refused  to  commune  with  the  bishops  who 
instigated  the  act.  But  the  Martyrdom  of  Man 
in  the  name  of  the  Cross,  the  slaughter  of  men 
for  holding  erroneous  beliefs  about  The  Christ, 
had  now  begun,  and  for  centuries  it  spread 
with  increasiQg  cruelties. 

The  union  of  Church  and  State  produced  the 
results  which  always  flow  from  this  unholy 
alliance.  Having  lost  the  secret  of  Jesus, 
people  felt  that  religion  needed  the  support 
of  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  and  that  it  was 
right  to  suppress  unbelief  by  all  the  penalties 
used  by  the  State  against  crimes  in  general. 
Christianity  was  transformed  by  the  worldly 
spirit  of  Roman  Imperialism,  while  the  admin- 
istration of  law  was  poisoned  by  the  sectarian 

20 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

passions  of  bitter  Christian  zealots;  both  or- 
ganizations were  corrupted  and  weakened. 
The  disciples  of  Jesus  forsook  their  spiritual 
tasks  and  gave  themselves  to  worldly  ambitions 
and  political  intrigues;  the  machinery  of  civil 
government  was  diverted  from  the  duties  of 
general  order  and  public  justice  to  alien  or 
unfruitful  tasks  in  the  intangible  and  mystical 
realm  of  speculative  belief.  This  work  of 
punishing  heretics  was  a  matter  foreign  to 
Roman  Law,  with  which  the  civil  administra- 
tors of  the  Empire  had  not  been  trained  to  deal. 
Such  a  combination  could  only  bring  disaster 
to  all  concerned :  the  Gospel  went  into  captivity 
to  worldly  passion  and  Eoman  Jurisprudence 
became  a  terrible  engine  for  inflicting  injustice. 
The  hearts  of  men  were  now  filled  with  hatred 
of  heretics;  the  churches  were  distracted  by 
bitter  controversies;  iatolerance  became  a 
virtue  and  persecution  the  noblest  service  to 
God.  The  world  was  full  of  the  woes  of  those 
outlawed  on  account  of  unbelief  and  the  earth 
red  with  the  blood  shed  to  appease  the  wrath 
of  the  populace  against  ''the  enemies  of 
Christ, ' '  whose  only  crime  was  an  honest  doubt 
or  perhaps  a  sublimer  faith.  The  story  is  long 
and  sad ;  but  we  need  to  understand  it  in  order 
to  appreciate  our  present  blessings  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty. 


21 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

IV 

It  was  no  accident  bnt  manifest  destiny  that 
made  the  city  of  Eome  the  center  of  Christen- 
dom. It  had  been  the  seat  of  authority  for 
centuries.  The  marvelous  network  of  admin- 
istration by  which  the  nations  had  long 
been  held  and  governed  centered  in  that  city, 
from  which  power  spread  and  to  which  all  eyes 
looked.  This  fact  alone  naturally  gave  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  distincltion  and  prominence. 
Other  influences  helped  to  make  the  Roman 
Church  imperial.  The  missionary  work  spread- 
ing widely  from  that  city  strengthened  the 
hands  of  its  bishop  by  creating  a  clerical  army 
and  new  churches  obedient  to  his  word.  While 
the  Christian  leaders  in  the  Orient  were  wast- 
ing their  energies  on  petty  and  obscure  prob- 
lems of  speculative  theology,  the  Roman 
bishops,  sagacious,  conservative,  and  practical 
men,  gave  themselves  to  the  more  fruitful 
tasks  of  administration;  and,  by  avoiding 
divisive  controversies  and  settling  disputes 
with  wisdom,  they  drew  the  churchmen  of 
many  lands  into  friendly  relations  with  the 
Imperial  Church.  Also,  in  time,  the  weakness 
of  the  civil  power  in  the  West  (the  emperors 
had  long  spent  most  of  their  days  in  Constanti- 
nople) and  the  assaults  of  the  Barbarians  made 
it  easy  for  the  Roman  bishop  to  gratify  his 
ambitions  and  assume  great  authority.     Suo- 

22 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

cessive  popes  marched  onward  toward  supreme 
power,  not  because  Jesns  gave  Peter  a  com- 
mission that  conferred  world-dominion;  but 
this  legend  came  into  being  to  justify  aggres- 
sive policies  which  issued  during  a  slow  evolu- 
tion, due  to  the  historic  forces  which  have  just 
been  indicated. 

In  440,  a  man,  at  once  a  wise  statesman  and 
a  zealous  churchman,  of  striking  character  and 
remarkable  qualities  of  leadership,  became 
Bishop  of  Rome.  It  was  a  time  of  crisis  and 
transition ;  and  Leo  I.  was  master  of  the  situa- 
tion. He  saw  the  necessity  and  the  opportu- 
nity for  a  strong  hand;  and  he  improved  the 
occasion  to  forward  the  interests  of  the  Church 
and  the  supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  He 
occupied  the  vacant  seat  of  the  Caesars,  but  he 
exercised  a  power  which  they  never  possessed, 
— ;the  power  of  Christian  faith  and  love,  which 
touched,  as  they  could  not,  the  hearts  of  men. 
Thrilled  by  the  ideas  of  Augustine  respectiQg 
a  spiritual  empire,  set  forth  in  the  **City  of 
God, ' '  Leo  bent  his  great  energies  to  the  build- 
ing up  of  a  new  civilization  under  the  form  of 
the  Christian  Church.  He  labored,  arbitrarily 
but  earnestly,  to  exalt  his  power  as  Bishop  of 
Rome  in  order  to  repress  violence,  to  destroy 
the  old  paganism  which  had  once  more  revived 
with  show  of  power  and  beauty  and  had 
furnished  a  few  years  before  a  martyr  in 
Hypatia  (415),  and  he  did  much  to  establish 

23 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

far  and  wide  unity  of  faith  and  uniformity  of 
church  government. 

All  this  Leo  sought  with  courageous  activity 
to  accomplish.  He  felt  himself  the  agent  of 
divine  Providence  and  the  embodiment  of 
supreme  power  to  save  humanity  by  the  asser- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Church. 
He  met  the  fierce  barbarian  Attila,  and  over- 
awed him  by  his  personal  bearing.  He  every- 
where maintained  the  supremacy  of  Rome  as 
the  representative  of  the  primacy  given  to 
Peter ;  and  he  drew  churches  to  himself  by  love 
when  he  could,  while  he  used  force  to  compel 
submission  when  necessary.  He  held  his 
clergy  to  the  practical  tasks  of  social  reorgan- 
ization rather  than  let  them  waste  themselves 
on  doctrinal  subtilties. 

Very  soon,  in  444,  came  his  clash  with  Bishop 
Hilary  of  Aries,  in  which  the  matter  in  dispute 
was  Viherther  the  church  in  Gaul  was  subject  to 
him  or  to  its  own  bishop.  And  Leo,  by  main- 
taining his  mastery,  and  ending  the  Gallician 
vicariate,  definitely  began  that  papal  aggres- 
sion which  was  consummated  in  1870  at  the 
Vatican  Council  by  the  formal  declaration  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  In  all  this,  Leo 
often  used  what  may  seem  to  us  questionable 
methods;  but  when  we  remember  the  severity 
of  the  crisis  and  the  greatness  of  his  labors, 
we  pass  a  lenient  judgment  and  rejoice  over 
many  of  his  services  to  civilization. 

24 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

This  movement  for  the  supremacy  of  the 
Papacy  culminated  about  the  middle  of  the 
eleventh  century  in  Hildebrand, — a  carpenter's 
son,  born  in  Tuscany,  whose  promise  as  a  lad 
gained  for  him  a  good  education.  His  remark- 
able qualities  soon  brought  him  to  the  front 
with  a  firm  determination  to  reform  the  Church 
and  redeem  society,  by  making  the  supremacy 
of  the  Papacy  a  reality  and  infusing  into  it  a 
new  spirit.  A  man  of  immense  resources, 
impressive  bearing,  powerful  will,  and  tre- 
mendous energy,  who  for  twenty-four  years 
directed  six  popes  in  asserting  the  authority 
of  the  Papacy,  and  then  for  twelve  years, 
1073-1085,  he  was  himself  pope,  taking  the 
name  Gregory  VII.  Hildebrand  was  a  great 
politician,  who  knew  how  to  use  one  nation 
against  another,  taking  advantage  of  the  jeal- 
ousies of  kings  and  the  disorders  of  the  time 
to  gain  his  ends  and  advance  the  interests  of 
Eome.  He  could  touch  men  through  their 
ambitions,  leading  some  by  their  selfishness, 
while  commanding  others  by  appeals  to  their 
better  nature. 

These  policies  Rome  has  since  followed  and 
the  papal  system  which  Hildebrand  helped  to 
build  up,  in  its  essential  elements,  still  endures. 
He  subjected  the  clergy  to  rigid  discipline,  en- 
forcing celibacy  and  absolute  obedience  to 
Eome.  He  put  an  end  to  **lay  investiture," — 
the  right  of  local  civil  rulers  to  appoint  favor- 

25 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ites  to  clerical  positions  in  their  own  lands, — 
and  in  this  way  he  centralized  ecclesiastical 
power  and  brought  all  priests  directly  under 
the  control  of  the  pope.  But  most  of  all,  he' 
asserted  and  maintained  the  superiority  of  the 
Papacy  to  all  temporal  powers  and  the  right 
of  the  pope  to  make  and  unmake  kings,  using 
against  the  disobedient,  more  rigorously  than 
his  predecessors,  two  weapons:  excommunica- 
tion, which  cuts  the  individual  off  from  the 
Church  and  the  means  of  salvation  (an  awful 
punishment  in  those  days) ;  and  interdict, 
which  lays  a  curse  upon  the  whole  nation,  so 
that  no  Church  can  be  opened  and  no  rite  can 
be  performed.  It  was  the  latter  which  brought 
Henry  IV.,  King  of  Germany,  to  plead  with 
him  for  pardon,  at  Canossa,  where  Hildebrand 
kept  the  monarch  standing  in  the  cold  for 
nearly  four  days,  before  he  would  receive  the 
royal  penitent ! 

Thus  the  Gospel  first  came  under  bondage  to 
the  State  and  then  to  the  Eoman  Hierarchy, 
which  made  vassals  of  both  statesman  and 
philosopher.  Belief  was  enforced  as  compul- 
sory, and  the  avenues  to  God  were  closed  to 
all  except  those  who  obeyed  the  priest  and 
paid  him  tribute.  A  more  unfortunate  condi- 
tion for  religion  could  not  have  been  devised. 
A  greater  perversion  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
cannot  possibly  be  imagined.  A^Tiat  he  made 
accessible  to  all,  the  Church  conditioned  upon 

26 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

credulity  and  servility.  The  reason  and  love 
that  he  set  free  were  put  under  deadening 
bonds.  The  Father  whom  he  brought  near  was 
made  difficult  to  approach.  The  simple  pieties 
of  the  heart  in  which  he  located  Eternal  Life 
were  supplanted  by  mystical  rites,  which  only 
the  priest  could  administer  and  which  were 
the  sole  means  for  reaching  heaven.  The 
Hierarchy  had  a  monopoly  of  the  bread  of  life, 
and  this  power  was  used  most  despotically. 

It  was  inevitable  that  conflicts  should  arise 
and  calamities  follow.  Such  extreme  ambi- 
tions invited  opposition.  Such  arrogant 
aggressions  created  unbelief  and  rebellion.  In 
the  twelfth  century  these  results  appeared. 
Heretics  arose  in  the  south  of  France :  the 
Waldenses  and  the  Cathari.  The  Eoman 
Church  felt  that  its  very  existence  was  threat- 
ened. These  attacks  must  be  resisted;  these 
heretics  destroyed.  The  authority  of  the 
Papacy  must  be  vindicated.  The  atrocities 
of  the  Albigensian  Crusade  followed  (after 
1200).  To  accomplish  more  completely  the 
destruction  of  its  enemies,  the  Papacy  insti- 
tuted the  Inquisition  (about  1232).  Later  the 
Spanish  Inquisition  (1480)  extended  and  in- 
tensified these  brutal  methods.  In  its  two  and 
a  half  centuries,  340,000  persons  suffered  as 
its  victims :  32,000  being  burned  to  death.  The 
principle  of  this  effective  but  monstrous  engine 
of  papal  ambition  and  tyranny,  the  most  un- 

27 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

holy  and  frightful  ever  devised  by  man,  was 
murderous.  As  Lord  Acton  (a  Catholic),  a 
competent  authority,  stated,  it  meant  ''relig- 
ious assassination,^^  and  assassination  in  its 
most  brutal  and  merciless  form  (Letters,  300. 
1904). 

The  chief  feature  of  the  inquisitional  process 
was  a  questioning  under  torture  to  secure  con- 
fession of  guilt  or  to  obtain  evidence  against 
others :  both  objects  unjust  and  inhuman.  The 
following  is  a  moderate  statement  by  a  fair 
and  competent  author:  *'The  torture  took 
place  at  midnight,  in  a  gloomy  dungeon,  dimly 
lighted  with  torches.  The  victim, — ^whether 
man,  matron,  or  tender  virgin, — ^was  stripped 
naked  and  stretched  upon  the  wooden  bench. 
Water,  weights,  fires,  pulleys,  screws, — all  the 
appliances  by  which  the  sinews  could  be 
strained  without  cracking,  the  bones  crushed 
without  breaking,  and  the  body  racked  ex- 
quisitely without  giving  up  its  ghost,  were 
now  put  into  operation.  .  .  .  All  the  forms  of 
torture  which  the  devilish  ingenuity  of  the 
monks  had  invented.  The  imagination  sickens 
when  striving  to  keep  pace  with  their  dreadful 
realities''   (Motley,  Dutch  Eepublic.  L  275). 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  otherwise  gentle 
people  worked  frantically  at  this  horrible  busi- 
ness. The  Church  madly  and  blindly  followed 
its  instinct  of  self-preservation.  It  felt  that 
to  tolerate  unbelief  meant  its  own  death;  it 

28 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

must  crush  opposition  or  perish.  Its  impelling 
motive  was  an  insanity  of  religious  enthusiasm 
under  the  guidance  of  both  hate  and  supersti- 
tion. The  awful  mistake  of  making  a  crime  of 
free  thought,  of  putting  an  institution  above 
humanity.  It  was  no  new  thing  in  Christen- 
dom. By  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  Church 
and  State  united  to  put  infidels  to  death.  The 
Arians,  who  suffered  so  much  and  so  frequently 
for  their  heresies  were,  as  a  rule,  more  tolerant 
and  merciful.  But  for  four  centuries  after 
1200,  the  Catholic  inquisitors  blackened  the 
history  of  Europe  with  most  terrible  atrocities.  \ 
Nothing  so  horrible  is  found  in  all  the  world  \ 
outside  Christendom.  The  Church  made  in-  ' 
vestigation  a  sin,  punished  free  thought  as  a 
crime,  and  barred  the  way  of  mental  and  moral 
progress  by  the  torture  of  the  rack  and  the 
martyrdom  of  the  stake. 

The  spirit  of  intolerance  and  the  practice  of 
persecution  have  not  only  inspired  hatreds  and 
created  miseries  beyond  the  power  of  imagina- 
tion to  conceive,  or  of  language  to  describe,  but 
they  also  kept  back  scientific  discovery,  civic 
progress,  and  religious  development  for  cen- 
turies. In  every  realm  of  human  good  we 
would  have  been  today  centuries  in  advance  of 
our  present  position  had  not  rack  and  stake 
subjugated  the  human  mind  and  blocked  the 
highway  of  humanity.  If  such  men  as  Eoger 
Bacon, — dying  just  before  1300,   after  years 

29 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

of  cruel  imprisonment;  Copernicus,  whose 
theories  were  looked  upon  with  disfavor  by 
successive  popes  and  rejected  by  Luther  and 
even  by  Lord  Bacon;  Bruno, — ^burned  at  Rome 
in  1600 ;  Galileo, — cruelly  persecuted  and  hur- 
ried to  an  untimely  grave  in  1642,  because  he 
trusted  his  eyes  and  his  telescope  rather  than 
Biblical  texts — ^to  refer  to  only  a  few  conspicu- 
ous names  in  one  department  of  human  effort, 
— if  these  and  similar  inquirers  had  been  en- 
couraged instead  of  being  persecuted  and 
slaughtered,  we  would  now  be  enjoying  bless- 
ings which  will  not  appear  for  generations  to 
come! 

It  is  impossible  to  contemplate  the  indescrib- 
able cruelties  and  innumerable  miseries  of  the 
Martyrdom  of  Man  without  feelings  of  intense 
horror.  The  modern  heart  is  overwhelmed  by 
the  hateful  story  of  unnecessary  human  suffer- 
ing. When,  by  contrast,  we  call  to  mind  the 
present  blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
then  our  ardent  thanks  go  out  to  those  who 
won  the  great  victory  for  freedom.  When  we 
realize  how  much  the  happiness  of  mankind 
has  been  enlarged  because  the  passions  and 
policies  which  operated  through  the  Inquisition 
have  disappeared,  then  we  are  stirred  by  a 
deep  sense  of  gratitude  that  we  live  in  a  world 
free  from  the  tortures  of  the  rack,  and  where 
heretics  are  no  longer  burned  at  the  stake. 
When  we  enter  into  the  joys  of  those  who  now 

30 


The  Martyrdom  of  Man 

have  freedom  of  research,  of  speech,  of  wor- 
ship, then  we  are  moved  to  crown  with  highest 
honors  those  lordly  souls,  who  did  valiant 
service  in  putting  an  end  to  the  reign  of  terror 
and  in  bringing  in  a  new, day  of  peace  between 
Church  and  State,  between  Eeligion  and 
Science.  We  rejoice  with  exceeding  great  joy 
in  all  that  has  been  done  to  foster  the  spirit  of 
brotherhood  among  all  disciples  of  a  common 
Master,  however  different  their  religious 
opinions. 

And  just  because  the  people  of  Plymouth 
contributed  so  largely  to  this  beneficent 
achievement,  it  is  worth  while  in  these  Ter- 
centenary Days  to  study  the  origin  and  char- 
acter of  those  great  historic  forces  which 
worked  through  them  and  constitute  what  may 
well  be  called  the  Pilgrim  Glory. 


31 


CHAPTER  n 

EARLY  PROPHETS  AND  PROTESTANT 
FAILURES 


THE  EDICT  OF  TORDA,  TRANSYLVANIA: 
JANUARY  6,  1568 

His  Royal  Highness^  as  in  former  Diets,  so  in  this 
now  present,  confirms  that  ministers  of  the  Gospel  may 
everywhere  preach  and  explain  it,  each  according  to  his 
own  understanding;  and  the  community  may  accept  or 
reject  the  teaching  as  it  thinks  good.  No  force  may  be 
used  to  compel  acceptance  against  conviction.  Congre- 
gations are  allowed  to  have  each  the  preacher  they  wish. 
Preachers  shall  not  be  molested,  nor  any  one  persecuted, 
on  account  of  religion;  no  one  is  permitted  to  remove 
from  office,  or  to  imprison,  any  one  because  of  his  teach- 
ing. Faith  being  the  gift  of  God,  which  comes  by  hear- 
ing, and  the  hearing  through  the  Word  of  God." 

he  Diet,  won  by  the  eloquence  of  Francis  David, 
passed  this  Edict  by  a  unanimous  vote.  This  did  not 
mean  absolute  religious  freedom,  but  complete  tolera- 
tion for  the  four  received  religions  of  the  principality: 
Catholic,  Lutheran,   Calvinistic,  Unitarian. 

I  gladly  appropriate  the  words  of  my  friend.  Rev. 
Dr.  William  Channing  Gannett:  "This  was  a  most  won- 
derful stretch  of  toleration  for  those  days;  probably  the 
widest  known  in  Christian  history  up  to  that  time;  and 
so  wide  that  in  most  Christian  lands,  whether  Catholic 
or  Protestant,  its  like  was  no  more  than  dreamed  of  for 
generations  after.  When  we  remember  what  the  Inqui- 
sition was  doing  in  the  Netherlands  in  this  very  year, 
1568 — [a  sentence  of  the  Holy  Office  condemned  prac- 
tically all  the  inhabitants  of  the  Netherlands  to  death 
as  heretics — Feb.  16,  1568], — and  that  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's Massacre  in  France  was  only  four  years  away, 
and  that  Protestant  leaders,  German,  French,  Swiss, 
all  but  the  Italian  refugees,  chorused  approval  of  Calvin 
for  burning  Servetus,  and  that  Shakespere  might  have 
watched  heretics  burning  or  drowning  in  England,  and 
that  fifty  years  after  Shakespere's  death  English 
prisons  were  crowded  with  Quakers  and  Baptists, — 
when  we  remember  these  things,  whatever  rebate  of 
praise  may  be  needed,  glory  enough  belongs  to  Tran- 
sylvania and  Torda  and  Prince  John  Sigismund  for 
their  Edict  of  Toleration  in  1568." 


CHAPTER  II 

EARLY  PROPHETS  AND  PROTESTANT 
FAILURES 


During  the  two  hundred  years  previous  to 
the  discovery  of  America,  many  great  events 
had  occurred  in  Europe  and  radical  changes 
were  impending  at  the  end  of  that  period. 
Seven  Crusades  had  swept  eastward  (1095- 
1291).  The  Holy  Sepulchre  was  still,  however, 
in  the  hands  of  the  Moslem  Infidels;  but 
eastern  scholars  had  fled  westward  with  their 
literary  treasures,  an  event  which  hastened  a 
resurrection  from  the  graves  of  ignorance  and 
superstition.  Amidst  these  varied  activities, 
certain  agencies,  both  material  and  spiritual, 
were  effecting  a  revolution  in  civilization:  its 
basis,  spirit,  and  ideal. 

The  movement  was  complex,  widespread, 
and  radical.  (1)  Great  economic  forces  were 
at  work.  The  breakup  of  the  Feudal  System, 
hastened  by  the  use  of  gunpowder,  had  effaced 
many  class  distinctions  and  had  done  much  to 
liberate   the  masses.     Such   scourges   as   the 

35 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

*' Black  Death,''  by  sweeping  off  millions  of 
workmen,  had  made  labor  high  and  had  given 
more  room  and  larger  privileges  to  the  toilers, 
hastening  the  rise  of  the  '* third  estate":  a 
great  Middle  Class  dominated  by  the  secular 
spirit.  The  rise  of  cities  and  the  multiplica- 
tion of  trade  guilds  had  evolved  social  impulses 
and  promo,ted  independence.  Great  maritime 
enterprises,  with  wider  sweep  and  more 
venturesome  spirit,  made  possible  by  the 
Mariner's  Compass  brought  from  the  East 
about  1200,  had  broadened  the  popular  horizon 
and  thrilled  the  popular  heart  ^vith  vast 
ambi)tions. 

(2)  Creative  intellectual  forces  were  at  work 
widely  and  deeply.  A  wider  and  better  knowl- 
edge of  the  Greek  and  Latin  literatures  stim- 
ulated imagination,  refined  taste,  developed 
reason,  and  humanized  the  spirit  of  man.  An 
increasing  acquaintance  with  the  Bible,  in 
Vulgate  and  vernacular  translations,  awak- 
ened uiquiries  and  suggested  new  conceptions 
of  God,  Jesus,  and  salvation.  Its  cruder  por- 
tions were  better  than  relics  and  crucifixes; 
its  noblest  passages  infinitely  more  helpful 
than  Mass  and  Confessional.  A  few  people 
began  to  ask  questions  and  investigate  the 
phenomena  of  Nature.  Even  alchemy  and 
astrology  opened  doors  toward  discovery. 
The  study  of  law  and  medicine  provided  a  new 
outlook  upon  the  world  and  produced  a  new 

36 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

sense  of  the  power  of  mind  and  the  sanctity  of 
Nature.  The  invention  of  printing, — Guten- 
berg's first  Latin  Bible  was  printed  about 
1455! — multiplied  man's  intellectual  resources, 
reducing  the  cost  of  books  to  one-fifth  their 
former  price. 

(3)  Certain  domestic  and  patriotic  impulses 
came  to  mastery.  The  home  instinct  asserted 
itself  against  celibacy  and  monasticism.  The 
love  of  country  made  itself  widely  felt  and 
people  began  to  experience  the  thrill  of  nation- 
alism. Secular  ambitions  overcame  the  ascetic 
temper  and  the  demand  was  made  that  the 
world,  as  a  whole,  be  redeemed  and  reorgan- 
ized, here  and  now.  A  worldliness,  sometimes 
sensual,  but  often  sanctified  by  noble  and 
humane  ideals,  crowded  aside  the  vague  and 
non-human  ^  ^  otherworldliness ' '  which  had  long 
dominated  Europe. 

(4)  A  general  revolt  arose  against  the 
Eoman  Church.  There  was  a  growing  protest 
of  the  moral  sense  against  the  corruptions  of 
the  priesthood.  There  was  a  deepening  protest 
of  sincere  piety  against  the  scandals  of  the 
Papacy:  the  Babylonian  Captivity  (1309-1377), 
when  the  papal  court  was  full  of  intrigue, 
venality,  and  sensuality,  so  vividly  portrayed 
by  Petrarch,  and  then  the  Great  Schism,  first 
with  two  popes  (1378)  and  then  (about  1400) 
with  three  infallible  vice-gerents  of  God! 
There  was  an  increasing  protest  of  the  intellect 

37 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

against  Eomish  superstitions:  so  numerous, 
gross,  and  absurd.  There  was  an  angry  pro- 
test of  the  heart  against  the  cruel  Martyrdom 
of  Man.  There  was  a  rising  revolt  of  reason 
against  the  hierarchical  enslavement  of  the 
mind  to  irrational  dogmas  and  fruitless  forms. 
There  was  also  an  expanding  protest  of 
patriotic  nationalism  against  the  tyranny  of 
papal  policies. 

In  all  this  stir  of  new  forces,  mental  and 
moral,  social,  industrial,  and  political,  the 
great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  progress  towards 
religious  liberty  was  the  feeling:  I  alone  have 
the  absolute  faith  which  saves  the  soul,  and  the 
State  must  enforce  it.  As  long  as  people 
generally  shared  this  feeling,  the  persecution 
of  heretics  seemed  not  only  the  righteous,  but 
the  merciful  thing  to  do.  A  change  of  view 
at  this  point  had  to  take  place.  Men  must  come 
to  see:  (1)  That  there  is  no  such  absolute 
faith  which  alone  secures  salvation.  (2)  That 
religion  does  not  need  the  aid  of  the  State  to 
maintain  itseK.  (3)  That  the  human  reason' 
may  safely  be  left  free,  for  God  himself  abides 
in  the  rational  soul.  These  seem  like  self- 
evident  statements  today,  but  it  took  many 
generations  to  incorporate  them  in  government 
policy  and  church  order;  and  in  a  large  part 
of  Christendom  they  are  not  yet  accepted  as 
J;rue. 


3S 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

II 

To  find  one  of  the  first  men  who  did  see  these 
great  truths,  we  have  to  go  back  to  Marsilius 
of  Padua,  who,  in  1324,  wrote  a  book,  Defensor^ 
Pacts,  influential  and  epoch-making,  in  which 
he  set  Church  and  State  apart,  holding  that 
the  State  should  have  no  religious  functions 
and  the  priest  no  power  in  secular  affairs. 
This  was  the  prophecy  of  the  modern  secular 
State,  which  is  thus  described  by  an  eminent 
modem  author:  ^^The  Modern  State  does  not 
consider  religion  a  condition  of  legal  status. 
Public  and  private  law  are  independent  of 
creed.  The  Modern  State  protects  freedom  of 
belief  and  unites  peacefully  different  churches 
and  religious  societies.  It  abstains  from  all 
persecution  of  dissenters  or  unbelievers'' 
(Bluntschli,  The  Theory  of  the  State). 

Little  is  known  of  the  early  life  of  Marsilius. 
He  was  a  student,  at  several  famous  universi- 
ties, becoming  a  master  in  theology,  medicine, 
and  law,  the  last  two  studies  especially  con- 
ducive to  breadth  of  mind  and  liberality  of 
spirit.  He  seems  to  have  finished  his  education 
at  the  University  of  Paris,  where  he  was  highly 
honored,  serving  as  its  Rector;  and  it  was  there 
that  he  wrote  his  notable  book,  in  the  three 
months  from  April  to  June,  1324. 

This  book  he  dedicated  to  Louis  of  Bavaria, 
which  was  quite  a  natural  thing  for  him  to  do, 

S9 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

for  the  author  knew  that  the  King  (then 
Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire)  was  an 
opponent  of  the  Eoman  Papacy,  and  would 
therefore  be  interested  in  a  Work  which 
assailed  the  pretenses  of  the  Catholic  Hier- 
archy; while,  for  the  same  reason,  his  imperial 
protection  of  the  author  could  be  assumed. 
Marsilius  at  once  went  to  Nuremberg  and 
became  an  associate  and  advisor  of  Louis, 
probably  greatly  helping  the  King  in  his  oppo- 
sition to  the  pope.  He  played  an  important 
part  during  Louis'  campaigns  in  Italy  in  1328 
when  Pope  John  XXII.  was  temporarily  de- 
posed. Marsilius  apparently  remained  under 
Louis'  protection  until  his  own  death  in  1343. 
It  seems,  however,  that  the  King,  toward  the 
last,  repudiated  some  of  his  extreme  views. 

Thework,  J[)e/e.>^.sor  Pads,  was  the  most 
powerful  treatise  of  the  age,  far  more  so  than 
Dante's  De  Monarchia,  issued  a  few  years  be- 
fore Dante  died,  1321.  It  exerted  a  profound 
and  radical  influence  upon  the  thinking  of 
Western  Europe  for  two  centuries.  Lui;zow 
well  states  the  case:  ^^Its  ideas  seem  to  have 
been  so  generally  shared  by  [advanced]  think- 
ers of  the  time  that  they  had  about  become 
conunon  property"  (Hus,  9).  Wiclif  (born  the 
year  it  was  issued,  1324)  borrowed  extensively 
from  it;  this  was  directly  charged  by  Pope 
Gregory  XL  in  his  various  Bulls  directed 
against  Wiclif  and  Oxford  in  1377. 

40 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

The    history    of    this    remarkable    treatise) 
shows  its  immense  influence  for  many  years :( 
Soon  after  it  appeared,  Pope  John  XXII.  con- 
demned it  and  its  author  (Ap.  3,  1327),  and  he 
referred  to  it  in  his  official  documents  ten  times 
in  the  next  four  years.    For  over  two  hundred 
years,  it  was  repeatedly  denounced  by  popes 
and  by  leaders  of  the  Inquisition.     So  neces- 
sary did  it  seem  to  Eome  to  destroy  this  work 
that  it  was   included  four   times   in  lists   of' 
**  prohibited  books''  from  1546  to  1556,  one  of  I 
these  drawn  up  under  the  direction  of  Charles 
V.    It  was  translated  into  French  before  1353, 
a  fact  which  shows  the  wide  popular  demand; 
for   it.     An   Italian   translation   appeared   ini 
1363;  a  German  translation  in  1522;  an  English 
translation  in  1535.     Eight  German  editions 
w'ere  issued  from  1612  to  1692:  more  than  a 
score  of  editions  and  translations  from  1324  to 
1692!    An  edition  of  the  Latin  text  was  pub-, 
lished  by  Richard  Scholtz  at  Leipzig  in  1914.  | 
The  teachings  of  Marsilius  respecting  the  rela- 
tion of  Church  and  State,  and  consequently  on 
tolera^tion  and  persecution,  so  clear,  original 
and  radical,  were  powerful  forces  in  Western 
Europe  for  two  centuries  and  a  half. 

What  were  the  teachings  of  this  remarkable 
book?  In  its  disconnected  paragraphs,  over- 
loaded with  unimportant  details,  some  great 
general  truths  are  found,  which  seem  very 
modern,  and  which  show  that  the  author  was 

41 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

far  ahead  of  his  age.    These  for  instance:  His 
central    idea    was    ^Hhe    sovereignty    of    the 
people*';    that   government    should   be    demo- 
cratic: the  people  themselves  being  the  source 
of  civil  power  with  sole  authority  to  make  laws. 
He  held  that  the  people  had  the  right  to  elect 
their  rulers  and  also  to  call  them  to  account, 
,  and  in   case   of  injustice  or  misbehavior,   to 
i  depose   them    and    even   put    them   to   death. 
There  is  found  in  its  pages  also  a  plea  for 
limited  armament.     And  Marsilius  supported 
these  propositions  by  arguments  based  upon  a 
rational   interpretation    of    Scripture    and   by 
appeals  to  the  fundamental  facts  of  common 
I  human  experience.     He  was  undoubtedly  in- 
debted to  Greek  and  Eoman  philosophers  for 
^many  of  these  ideas,  especially  to  the  Politics 
of_Aristotle. 

r  But  the  chief  interest  of  the  treatise  lies  in 
I  its  general  purpose :  its  demand  for  a  separa- 
I  tion  of  Church  and  State  as  the  only  way  by 
which  a  lasting  peace  can  be  secured :  indicated 
by  its  very  title :  Defensor  Pacts.  This  part  of 
its  teaching  was  peculiarly  original.  The  de- 
fence or  assurance  of  peace  must  be  secured 
by  separating  the  duties  of  civil  government 
and  the  functions  of  religion.  The  horrors  of 
the  Martyrdom  of  Man  deeply  impressed 
Marsilius.  He  saw  that  the  meddling  of  popes 
and  priests  in  state  affairs  led  to  bad  politics 
and  innumerable  wars.     On  the   other  hand, 

42 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

when  churchmen  departed  from  their  spiritual 
functions  and  became  politicians,  they  weak- 
ened the  Church  and  lessened  their  influence  as 
moral  guides  and  religious  leaders.  The  State 
must  be  supreme  in  its  own  sphere,  as  a  con- 
stitutional system  based  on  popular  rights, 
using  democratic  methods,  and  never  going 
beyond  the  limit  of  civil  affairs.  To  Marsilius 
the  State  was  superior  to  the  Church  in  so  far 
as  it  was  its  duty  to  protect  itself  from  eccle- 
siastical domination  and  compel  priests  to  keep 
strictly  to  their  spiritual  functions.  It  was 
not,  however,  the  duty  of  the  State  to  deter- 
mine heresy  or  punish  heretics,  except  when 
they  violated  some  civil  law. 

All  this  being  granted,  it  naturally  follows 
that  popes  and  priests  have  no  right  to  ex- 
communicate or  interdict.  The  Church  has  no 
right  to  compel  belief  or  punish  heresy:  the 
Inquisition  was  condemned  as  an  offense  to 
both  political  rights  and  religious  principles 
(Part  II,  Chapter  VIL).  The  power  of  priests 
should  be  restricted  to  spiritual  affairs;  and 
when  so  restricted,  the  work  of  the  Church 
will  become  far  more  successful  and  the  per- 
sonal influence  of  the  clergy  much  more  fruit- 
ful. Marsilius  contended  that  all  priests 
should  be  equal  in  power,  while  the  Pope 
should  only  have  certain  privileges  as  the 
honorary  president  of  Christendom! 

However  commonplace  these  principles  may 

43 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

seem  today,  they  presented  a  revolutionary 
progrannne  when  set  forth  in  1324.  They 
pointed  the  way  to  the  great  deliverance  of 
the  world  from  the  Martyrdom  of  Man.  No 
wonder  that  he  and  his  book  were  bitterly 
condemned  by  popes.  No  wonder  that  eager 
minds  kept  demanding  new  editions  of  his 
work.  A  single  quotation  from  it,  is  all  that 
can  be  given  here:  *^I  say  it  is  not  lawful  for 
any  man  to  judge  a  heretic  or  misbeliever,  or 
compel  him  to  any  pain  or  punishment  dur- 
ing this  life.''  How  surprisingly  modern  that 
looks ! 


Ill 

The  story  of  John  Wiclif  (1324-1384)  need 
not  be  given  here.  He  was  in  college  at  Oxford 
when  Marsilius  died:  there  he  remained  as 
student,  teacher,  preacher,  writer,  to  the  end; 
translator  of  Scripture  into  English  for  the 
common  people  (*'As  Lords  in  England  have 
the  Bible  in  French,  so  it  were  not  against 
reason  that  they  [the  people]  hadden  the  same 
sentence  in  English'');  writer  of  many  tracts 
and  treatises  in  both  Latin  and  English  in 
exposition  of  Grospel  Christianity  and  popular 
rights;  a  true  democrat  before  the  time  of 
democracies  and  a  real  socialist  before  the  age 
of  Socialism.  He  was  truly  catholic  in  relig- 
ious spirit,  setting  up  no  dogmatic  standard 

44 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

by  which  to  include  his  friends  in  heaven  or 
exclude  his  enemies;  he  put  pulpit  in  place  of 
altar,  emphasizing  preaching  as  more  valuable 
than  sacraments, — ^he  iAterpreted  Christianity 
as  an  education  of  the  soul,  whose  salvation 
was  not  dependent  on  any  priestly  rite,  and 
over  whose  thought  no  pope  should  rule. 

The  Church  he  described  as  a  free  congre- 
gation of  all  Christian  people,  who  must  be 
saved  by  their  own  merit ;  with  no  sacramental 
magic  and  no  final  authority;  an  organization 
to  promote  morality  by  the  exercise  of  freedom 
and  the  study  of  Scripture;  an  association  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  intent  on  the  practice 
of  charity  and  the  cultivation  of  piety  rather 
than  on  monastic  vows  and  physical  penances, 
in  the  glad  faith  that  *^the  real  presence'^  is 
found  wherever  a  human  heart  is  penitent, 
forgiving  and  loving. 

But  we  are  not  so  much  concerned  here  with 
the  incidents  of  his  career  or  his  teachings  on 
religion  in  general  as  with  his  assault  upon  the 
papal  power;  for  it  was  this  which  gave  him 
his  abiding  influence  and  wide  popularity, 
which  made  him  the  leader  of  a  Reformation 
broader  than  that  advocated  by  many  later 
Protestants,  and  which  clearly  pointed  the  way 
to  the  only  permanent  escape  from  the  Martyr- 
dom of  Man.  His  teachings  on  these  points 
he  set  forth,  when  about  fifty  years  old,  in  his 
masterpiece:  De  Dominio  Divino, — Concerning 

45 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

God^s  Authority  or  Lordship;  another  work 
followed  on  Civil  Power  or  Man's  Lordship 
(De  Civili  Dominio).  In  his  discussions,  as  has 
been  stated,  he  assumed  as  fundamental  the 
theories  set  forth  by  his  predecessor,  Marsilius. 

The  central  theme  of  his  discussion  is  the 
origin  and  nature  of  both  spiritual  and  secular 
power,  and  the  right  relation  of  each  to  the 
other.  Wiclif  denied  that  power  or  authority 
resides  solely  in  the  papal  Hierarchy  or  that 
saving  grace  flows  to  the  individual  solely 
through  the  sacraments, — the  Eoman  Catholic 
claim, — and  he  boldly  asserted  that  both  de- 
scend directly  from  God  alone  to  the  individual 
and  depend  upon  heart  life  and  personal  ser- 
vice. In  this  connection,  he  clearly  stated  and 
forcibly  expounded  these  propositions:  (1) 
That  even  the  universal  approval  of  mankind 
could  not  warrant  the  Eoman  popes  in  holding 
political  dominion  over  the  world.  (2)  That 
the  disciples  of  Christ  have  no  right  to  impose 
temporal  penalties  upon  people :  this  would 
end  all  persecutions.  (3)  That  popes  and 
priests  are  not  independent  of  public  opinion 
but  may  lawfully  be  criticised,  censured,  and 
even  be  removed  from  office :  sovereignty,  both 
secular  and  spiritual,  inheres  only  in  the  people 
themselves. 

These  radical  and  revolutionary  principles 
did  not  root  deeply  in  that  age,  or  at  once  find 
organic  expression.      But  these  general  doc- 

40 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

trines,  that  struck  at  all  tyrannies  in  both 
Church  and  State,  were  widely  taught  by  the 
companies  of  popular  preachers  whom  Wiclif 
trained  and  sent  into  all  parts  of  the  land. 
These  seed-truths  were  never  entirely  lost  or 
wholly  destroyed;  and  the  successors  of  those 
whom  he  personally  trained,  the  Lollards,  kept 
them  alive,  so  that  in  after  years  they  yielded  a 
noble  harvest  in  England. 

In  far-oif  Bohemia,  they  made  for  a  time  a 
deeper  impression.  The  University  of  Prague 
was  then  a  new  institution,  and  its  great 
professor,  Adalbert  Eanconis,  gave  money 
to  send  its  bright  students  for  further  educa- 
tion to  Oxford  and  Paris.  Those  going  home 
from  Oxford  carried  to  their  native  land  the 
ideas  of  Wiclif.  His  manuscripts  were  there 
lovingly  studied  and  widely  copied.  Another 
circumstance  helped  this  movement.  The 
young  English  King,  Eichard  II.,  in  1382, 
married  Anne,  a  Bohemian  princess,  and  she 
became  an  enthusiastic  disciple  of  Wiclif,  aid- 
ing this  good  work  for  a  dozen  years  until  her 
death  in  1394.  Meanwhile,  John  Hus  had  be- 
come an  ardent  follower  of  Wiclif,  and  his 
great  book,  ^^Ecclesia,''  was  little  more  than 
a  reproduction  of  Wiclif 's  teachings.  His 
shameful  death  at  Constance  in  1415,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  *^ safe-conduct''  which  had  been 
given  him,  profoundly  stirred  Europe;  and 
though  Bohemia,  in  the  war  that  followed,  had 

47 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

to  yield  to  papal  arms,  the  Bohemians  won  the 
right  of  the  laity  to  the  cup,  or  use  of  the  wine 
at  mass  or  the  Lord's  Supper — the  only  coun- 
try where  this  is  permitted  by  the  Catholic 
Church! 

It  is  a  surprising  fact  that  Wiclif,  ridiculing 
mass  and  confessional,  condemning  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Papacy,  denouncing  persecu- 
tions, and  asserting  the  rights  of  the  people, 
should  have  been  permitted  to  live  in  compara- 
tive peace  and  die  a  natural  death.  He  did 
have  troubles  toward  the  end  of  his  life :  popes 
condemned  him;  and,  long  after  his  death,  the 
Council  of  Constance  (1415)  ordered  his  bones 
dug  up  and  burned — a  pitiful  exhibition  of 
hate!  Several  causes,  however,  contributed  to 
his  protection :  His  life  lay,  mainly,  in  the  long 
reign  of  Edward  III.  (1327-1377),  when  the 
English  people,  engaged  in  the  Hundred  Years ' 
War  with  France,  were  strongly  opposed  to 
the  popes,  who,  in  those  years,  were  tools  of 
French  kings.  These  other  circumstances  also 
protected  him :  He  was  the  honored  chaplain  of 
the  King,  the  beloved  idol  of  the  University 
of  Oxford,  while  both  the  struggling  peas- 
ants of  the  country  and  also  the  sturdy  laymen 
of  London  saw  in  him  their  friend  and 
advocate. 

The  figure  of  Wiclif  looms  large  on  the 
horizon  of  modern  history.  He  saw  the  central 
principles  of  the  impending  crisis.    He  clearly 

48 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

described  the  path  of  progress.  He  outlined 
what  means  must  be  used  to  solve  the  vast 
civil  and  religious  problems  then  at  hand. 
He  set  in  operation  forces  that  continued  to 
act  until  radical  reforms  were  secured.  To  the 
abolition  of  the  Martyrdom  of  Man  he  made  an 
immense  contribution.  His  assault  upon  the 
Papacy,  his  plea  for  Gospel  Chrisitianity,  his 
advocacy  of  popular  rights,  his  condemnation 
ofpersecution, — these  were  vital  factors  in  the 
making  of  modern  civilization. 


IV 

The  Eeformation  in  England,  slow  in  start- 
ing some  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Wiclif, 
was  a  native  and  a  national  movement.  King 
Henry  VIII.  was  as  bigoted  and  tyrannical 
as  any  pope,  and  three  of  the  men  who  co- 
operated with  him  were  compromising  politi- 
cians,— ^Wolsey,  Cromwell,  Cranmer, — ^without 
clear  vision  or  deep  piety.  Sir  Thomas  More 
(1478-1535),  England's  first  lay  chancel- 
lor (1529-1535),  was  never  in  agreement  with 
the  King  respecting  divorce  or  religion;  and 
he  lost  his  head  because  he  would  not  agree  to 
surrender  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  and  make 
Henry  head  of  the  Church  in  England,  nor 
would  he  agree  to  guarantee  the  succession  of 
the  crown  through  Anne  Boleyn.  Any  such 
opposition  was  to  the  King  treason.      To  be 

49 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

friendly  to  Rome  or  to  be  very  much  of  a 
Reformer  was,  to  Henry,  equally  otf ensive. 

The  book  which  More  published  (1516)  be- 
fore he  became  prominent  as  a  statesman, 
Utopia,  displayed  a  remarkably  broad  and 
tolerant  spirit.  By  the  laws  of  the  common- 
wealth there  described,  no  one  was  to  be  pun- 
ished for  his  religious  beliefs:  only  those  who 
violently  attacked  the  religion  of  another  were 
to  be  banished  on  the  charge  of  sedition. 
Atheists  were  tolerated  but  not  permitted  to 
hold  office. 

— All  this  is  most  clearly  and  interestingly 
stated  in  the  following  paragraph:  ^'Utopus 
made  a  law  that  every  man  might  be  of  what 
religion  he  pleased,  and  might  endeavor  to 
draw  others  to  it  by  the  force  of  argument,  and 
by  amicable  and  modest  means,  but  without 
bitterness  against  those  of  other  opinions;  but 
that  he  ought  to  use  no  other  force  but  that  of 
persuasion,  and  was  neither  to  mix  with  it 
reproaches  nor  violence ;  and  such  as  did  other- 
wise were  to  be  condemned  to  banishment 
or  slavery''  (Book  II.:  Religions  of  the 
Utopians). 

Unfortunately,  More  himself  did  not,  as 
chancellor,  live  up  to  his  own  teachings.  He 
was  exceedingly  severe  in  his  treatment  of 
those  charged  with  heresy.  He  personally 
engaged  in  the  search  of  John  Pepit's  house 
(London)   for  heretical  books.     And  in  1532, 

50 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

lie  advised  Henry  VIII.  *'to  punish  them 
[Protestants  like  Tindal,  the  translator  of  the 
Bible]  according  to  justice  by  sore  painful 
death,  both  for  example  and  for  infection  of 
others''  (Creighton,  Persecution  and  Toler- 
ance, 107).  The  words  of  Sir  Thomas  More 
on  this  subject  have  been  pleasant  reading,  and 
they  express  the  fancy  of  a  generous  spirit; 
but  as  a  practical  statesman,  he  helped  to  con- 
tinue the  Martyrdom  of  Man. 

In  the  same  year  that  More's  Utopia 
appeared,  Erasmus  published  his  **  Greek  Text 
of  the  New  Testament"  (1516);  the  finest 
product  of  the  New  Learning  by  its  greatest 
master;  and  this  work  at  once  promoted  re- 
ligious progress.  It  provided  a  text-book 
which  helped  toward  more  historical,  rational, 
and  spiritual  views  of  Christianity.  It  aided 
the  Eeformation  in  various  ways :  (1)  It  placed 
in  the  hands  of  scholars  these  New  Testament 
writings,  freed  from  the  gross  errors  which 
cumbered  the  pages  of  the  Vulgate  and  which 
had  long  served  to  support  the  errors  and 
assumptions  of  the  Papacy.  (2)  It  helped  to 
banish  from  the  minds  of  Christian  students 
the  mist  and  mysticism  of  medieval  scholasti- 
cism and  lead  Christian  thinking  back  to  the 
spirit  of  Christ  and  the  simplicities  of  the 
primitive  church.  (3)  It  aided  the  liberation 
of  the  Church  from  bondage  to  tradition;  and 
in     so     doing,     it     promoted     free     inquiry. 

51 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Erasmus'  reconstructed  New  Testament  Text 
made  clear  the  real  character  of  the  Biblical 
page,  by  stripping  off  the  mystical  gloss  and 
making  plain  its  somewhat  uncertain  and 
human  texture. 

Erasmus  (1467-1536)  was  then  at  the  height 
of  his  power  and  fame,  accepted  as  the  im- 
perial leader  of  the  European  world  of  letters, 
occupying  a  position  similar  to  that  later  held 
by  Voltaire.  A  Dutchman,  born  at  Rotterdam, 
he  had  studied  and  won  high  honors  at  several 
great  universities.  By  his  prodigious  industry, 
his  remarkable  versatility,  his  vast  funds  of 
information,  his  perfect  command  of  elegant 
Latin,  then  the  language  of  all  scholars,  he  had 
become  the  supreme  Humanist  of  all  the  ages : 
broad  in  culture,  clear  in  thought,  mild  in  tem- 
per, keen  in  wit,  comprehensive  in  his  views. 

The  relation  of  Erasmus  to  the  religious 
problems  of  his  time  was  peculiar.  He  hated 
priests  but  he  loved  the  Catholic  Church.  He 
despised  papal  pretenses  and  tyrannies,  but  he 
had  no  patience  with  actual  revolt  against 
Rome.  He  ridiculed  the  superstitions  of  the 
Catholic  masses,  but  he  also  ridiculed  the  nar- 
rowness of  the  Reforming  Sects.  A  competent 
scholar  has  well  written:  **His  sharp  pen, 
keener  than  any  sword,  fenced  busily  with  his 
many  enemies  and  he  never  delivered  a  thrust 
without  drawing  blood.  From  his  secure  re- 
treat   [Basel]   he   not   only   fought   with,   but 

52 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

laughed  at,  the  champions  of  both  parties.'' 
And  though  he  bitterly  condemned  the  Reform- 
ers, it  was  only  in  Protestant  centers, — Cam- 
bridge, Oxford,  Basel,  where  he  spent  the  last 
sixteen  years  of  his  life, — that  he  found  safety 
and  freedom  to  work! 

Like  many  in  later  times,  Erasmus  wished 
to  improve  the  Church  from  the  inside.  He 
wished  for  reform,  but  he  was  no  reformer; 
and  yet,  he  mightily  aided  the  Reformation. 
Constantly  protesting  he  was  never  a  Prot- 
estant! He  ridiculed  all  parties;  he  smote 
Catholic  sins  and  superstitions,  but  he'  desired 
to  live  and  die  a  Catholic;  he  forged  weapons 
for  the  Protestants,  but  he  would  not  use  them 
to  help  the  Reformation. 

These  characteristics  were  illustrated  in  the 
work  which  gave  Erasmus  international  fame, 
— ^^The  Praise  of  Folly''  (1509),  which  was  one 
of  the  most  popular  books  of  the  age.  It  was 
a  merciless  attack  upon  the  shortcomings  of 
priests,  and  it  did  much  to  open  the  eyes  of  the 
world  and  arouse  opposition  to  the  Catholic 
Church.  But  Erasmus  would  not  lead  a  cru- 
sade to  suppress  vicious  priests  and  supersti- 
tious practices,  and  so  give  the  world  a  better 
religion.      He  was  a  timid  lover  of  ease,  the 

(victim  of  con&tant  fears,  which,  associated 
with  a  strange  infirmity  of  will,  not  only  kept 
him  from  playing  a  heroic  part,  but  also  pre- 
vented him  from  being  loyal  to  his  better  im- 

53 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

pulses.    No  wonder  that  such  a  man  as  he  and 
Luther  did  not  long  remain  friends ! 

We  must,  however,  remember  that  the  gen- 
eral influence  of  Erasmus  was  decisively 
against  bigotry  and  persecution  and  strongly 
in  favor  of  freedom.  He  was  an  eloquent  and 
untiring  preacher  of  toleration.  He  helped  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  not  by  definite  teaching  or  courage- 
ous action,  but  by  letting  loose  great  liberating 
forces,  both  intellectual  and  spiritual.  He  even 
did  one  noble  stroke  for  toleration,  by  having 
an  article  put  into  the  city  ordinance  of  Basel 
in  1527,  the  first  but  not  very  lasting  example 
of  the  simultaneous  legal  recognition  of  several 
opposed  religions.  We  must  regret  his  lack 
of  heroism,  but  we  should  be  thankful  that  he 
used  his  vast  ability  to  make  the  Martyrdom 
of  Man  look  hateful,  and  in  this  way  he 
hastened  a  better  day. 

V 

The  Sixteenth  Century  was  a  period  of  revolt 
against  custom  and  tradition ;  an  age  of  violent 
attack  upon  priestly  authority ;  a  time  of  rapid 
and  radical  transition.  Many  momentous 
changes  were  made  in  the  policies  of  states  and 
the  faiths  of  peoples.  New  methods  came  into 
use  in  politics,  in  education,  in  the  Church. 
The  conditions  of  the  world  demanded  strong 

54 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

men  and  strong  men  were  abundant.  Brave 
hearts  and  powerful  minds  were  everywhere. 
But  there  was  not  much  clear  and  comprehen- 
sive thinking;  few  luminous  contributions  to 
the  solution  of  lifers  deepest  problems;  and 
not  many  characters  of  winsome  and  gracious 
spirit.  Christianity  gained  little  in  moral 
grace  or  spiritual  beauty,  but  Protestants  con- 
quered the  right  to  think  and  the  liberty  to 
grow.  The  foundations  of  spiritual  freedom 
were  widely  though  imperfectly  laid.  The 
Reformation  meant  that  the  individual  should 
possess  a  direct  access  to  God  by  the  free  use 
of  reason  and  conscience.  This  consciousness 
of  immediate  fellowship  with  the  Almighty 
deepened  moral  responsibility,  braced  the  will, 
stimulated  the  intellect,  and  opened  abundant 
springs  of  consolation. 

In  aU  this  work,  Martin  Luther  (1483-1546) 
stands  out  as  *^one  of  the  strongest,  bravest, 
ruggedest  of  mortal  men,''  too  much  inclined 
to  force  his  own  opinion  as  perfect  and  final; 
too  superstitious  to  reach  lasting  intellectual 
leadership;  but  a  true  hero,  doing  services  of 
incalculable  value  to  all  mankind.  It  was  the 
Unitarian  Martineau  who  wrote  of  him: 
'^  Never  since  apostolic  days,  did  Heaven  bless 
us  with  truer  prophet  than  Martin  Luther;'' 
and  the  Catholic  historian,  Alzog,  amidst  his 
criticisms,  gave  him  this  praise :  * '  By  the  won- 
derful activity  and  tumultuous  excitement  of 

55 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

his  life,  he  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men 
the  world  has  ever  produced/' 

In  this  great  German,  one  of  the  greatest 
creative  personages  of  history,  we  have  the 
heroic  leader,  who,  using  the  help  furnished  by 
Erasmus  and  others,  made  the  Eeformation  an 
historical  dispensation.  He  did  a  monumental 
work  for  human  freedom.  He  broke  the  chains 
of  tradi/tion,  of  custom,  of  dogma.  He  liberated 
the  spirit  of  man.  He  opened  a  wide  door  by 
which  the  soul  could  go  directly  to  God.  This 
was  the  inner  meaning  of  his  doctrine  of 
^^Justification  by  Faith.''  He  had  boundless 
courage,  masterful  activity,  vast  personal 
power. 

Luther  was  born  a  peasant,  of  Saxon  par- 
enjts,  and  he  remained  a  peasant  to  his  death, 
though  a  university  student  and  a  university 
professor.  In  this  fact — his  peasant  origin — 
lay  much  of  his  strength:  his  simple  habits, 
his  popular  instincts,  his  deep  piety  and  his 
tremendous  earnestness.  He  was  a  man  of  the 
people  in  his  general  sympathies,  except  in 
such  sad  incidents  as  the  Peasants'  War 
(1525).  In  this  crisis,  when  the  question  of 
authority  was  at  stake,  he  sided  with  the  rulers. 
From  this  circumstance,  of  lowly  origin,  came 
also  some  of  his  blemishes:  his  vehement  pas- 
sion, pouring  forth  in  language  always  strong 
and  often  coarse;  his  superstitions,  which  led 
him  into  what  he  took  for  personal  encounters 

56 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

with  Satan;  and  his  arrogant  dogmatism, 
which  made  an  enemy  of  Erasmus  and  led  him 
to  abuse  Zwingli,  one  of  the  greatest  mistakes 
of  his  life  (at  the  conference  at  Marburg  over 
the  nature  of  the  Eucharist,  1529).  His  love 
was  ardent,  and  his  hatred  intense.  With 
all  his  seriousness,  he  enjoyed  fun  and  frolic. 

Luther  was  a  mighty  believer  in  himself,  and 
yet  he  was,  in  his  social  relations,  often  child- 
like in  his  humility.  He  was  full  of  blood,  even 
to  hot  temper;  and  yet  he  was  given  to  great 
tenderness  and  forgiveness.  Shrewd  almost  to 
the  verge  of  craftiness,  but  he  had  mighty  con- 
victions, and  he  dared  to  act  in  obedience  to 
them.  Wherever  we  see  Luther  he  always 
interests  us,  though  we  may  not  admire  or 
approve.  Greater  in  courage  than  in  logic, 
stronger  in  feeling  than  in  thought,  with  de- 
cided faults  and  some  gross  elements,  he  com- 
mands our  interest  as  an  heroic,  masterful  man, 
who  won  an  immense  victory  for  mankind. 

In  his  age,  the  supreme  need  was  for  a  man 
of  dauntless  courage.  There  were  many  who 
saw  clearly  and  felt  keenly,  but  they  feared  to 
act;  they  failed,  like  Erasmus,  from  lack  of 
deep  moral  earnestness.  The  world  needed 
heroic  deeds:  not  timid  scholars  and  cowardly 
thinkers;  a  leader  who  would  take  risks,  who 
would  strike  heavy  blows,  shattering  idols  and 
destroying  vices  and  superstitions.  Luther 
was  just  this  man  of  mighty  action.    His  ham- 

57 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

mer  strokes  nailing  the  Ninety  Five  Theses  to 
the  church  door  in  Wittenberg  (Oct.  31,  1517), 
his  burning  of  the  papal  Bull  directed  against 
himself  (Dec.  10,  1520),  the  bold  assertion  of 
his  Protestantism  at  Worms  before  Charles  V. 
(April  18,  1521), — these  were  heroic  acts  with 
flaming  dramatic  power  and  vast  historic  in- 
fluence. He  did  not  create  the  movement  for 
Eef  orm,  there  was  more  in  it  than  he  imagined, 
but  his  many  brave  deeds  made  him  its  repre- 
sentative and  leader. 

It  is  a  surprising  fact,  however,  that  the 
horrors  of  the  Martyrdom  of  Man  made  slight 
impression  upon  Luther.  Although  victims  of 
the  rack  and  the  stake  then  abounded  in 
European  lands,  he  wrote  no  word  of  tender 
pity  for  these  sufferers,  and  he  uttered  no 
powerful  condemnation  of  their  tormentors, — 
the  inquisitors.  His  references  to  the  burning 
of  Hus  (^* Address  to  the  German  Nobility'': 
Art.  24,  1520)  show  no  **  righteous  ^vrath'' 
against  such  cruelty.  His  discussion  is  tame 
and  timid  and  his  main  criticism  was  that 
Rome  violated  the  ** safe-conduct"  promised 
the  heretic.  Against  Indulgences,  he  rightfully 
protested  most  vigorously  in  his  Ninety  Five 
Theses,  but  in  this  long  list  of  charges  against 
the  Papacy,  the  indescribable  cruelties  of  the 
Spanish  Inquisition  were  not  mentioned :  it  was 
then  in  full  operation,  having  been  instituted 
over  two  years  before  he  was  born! 

58 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

Luther  wrote  nobly  of  *^ Christian  Liberty'' 
(1520),  as  a  personal  grace, — ^the  liberty  of 
faith  iDeing  set  over  against  the  bondage  of  rite 
and  tradition.  But  of  liberty  as  an  intellectual 
condition  necessary  for  progress  in  culture  and 
piety;  of  liberty  as  an  atmosphere  in  Church 
and  State  which  stops  persecution  and  fosters 
humanity;  of  liberty  which  insures  to  the  in- 
dividual the  right  to  his  own  convictions, — of 
liberty  in  this  broad  and  modern  sense  there 
is  little  or  no  trace  in  his  pages.  He  stoutly 
demanded  freedom  from  Eome  for  himself, 
but  he  was  never  ready  in  actual  life  to  grant 
full  liberty  of  thought  and  faith  to  others.  He 
won  a  great  victory  for  freedom  although  he 
was  not  himself  a  liberal. 

No  one  would  expect  so  tumultuous  a  person 
as  Luther  to  be  always  clear  or  uniformly  con- 
sistent. The  phrase,  *  liberty  of  conscience," 
often  slipped  from  his  tongue  and  pen,  but 
what  it  describes  was  never  the  working  con- 
viction of  his  own  life.  Something  like  Con- 
gregational Polity  apparently  engaged  his 
sympathetic  attention  for  a  time.  But  he,  like 
Zwingli,  depended  upon  the  secular  powers  to 
reform  the  world.  Early  in  life  he  made  state- 
ments respecting  the  power  of  magistrates 
which  indicate  that  he  then  felt  some  at  least 
of  the  evils  that  flow  from  the  union  of  Church 
and  State :  ^ '  Under  the  pope  Satan  pushed  the 
Church  into  the  State.    Now  he  wishes  to  push 

59 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

the  State  into  the  Church. '  *  And  yet,  the  secu- 
larization of  civil  government  would  have 
seemed  to  him  a  most  ungodly  profanation. 

Luther  took  a  step  in  advance  of  the  papal 
theory,  that  heresy  is  per  se  a  sin  that  must  be 
punished,  holding  in  his  better  moments  that 
the  heretic  is  simply  an  enemy  of  both  Church 
and  State  who  mus^t  be  silenced  or  banished: 
which  would  be  punishment,  though  not  as 
severe  as  that  inflicted  by  inquisitors*  That  a 
king  should  compel  his  people  to  believe  and 
worship  as  he  thought  best,  did  not  seem  to 
him  an  injustice.  This  was  the  common  as- 
sumption of  the  time.  Even  the  free-thinker, 
Hobbes  (1588-1679),  over  a  century  later,  in 
his  Leviathan  (1651),  held  that  a  sovereign 
had  the  right  to  dictate  the  faith  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  also  to  punish  him,  if  he  disobeyed : 
precisely  the  tyranny  over  conscience,  which 
Lutherans  established  by  the  Peace  of  Augs- 
burg (1555).  That  came  nineteen  years  after 
Luther's  death,  but  it  represented  the  spirit  of 
his  later  years.  He  was  willing  to  compromise 
in  order  to  keep  the  support  of  the  rulers ;  and 
he  would  go  no  farther  than  they  would  sustain 
him. 

Of  Luther,  more  than  of  many  other  great 
characters,  it  has  to  be  confessed:  We  must 
highly  honor  him,  but  we  must  not  forget  his 
grave  limitations.  His  failure  to  see  and  real- 
ize the  Martyrdom  of  Man;  his  inability  to 

60 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

understand  the  evils  necessarily  inherent  in 
the  union  of  Church  and  State  meant  misfor- 
tune to  Germany  and  the  world.  Instead  of 
liberating  both,  he  prolonged  the  bondage  of 
both  by  continuing  this  union,  the  evil  effects 
of  which  were  well  described  by  the  eminen,t 
German  writer,  Geffcken,  in  these  words:  By 
this  union  *Hhe  true  energies  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion  were  first  nipped  in  the  bud''  (Church  and 
State,  I.,  330).  All  modern  admirers  of  Luther 
deeply  regret  his  serious  error  at  this  point. 
McGiffert  states  the  case  clearly:  ''Inde- 
pendency or  separation  of  Church  and  State 
there  was  none.  ...  A  state  church  was 
constructed  as  a  matter  of  course  and  Catholi- 
cism was  put  under  the  ban''  (Martin  Luther, 
322).  Innumerable  misfortunes  have  followed. 
The  bondage  inflicted  upon  religion  by  the 
Peace  of  Augsburg, — that  a  ruler  has  the  right 
to  impose  his  faith  upon  the  people  of  his  coun- 
try and  that  the  State  is  master  of  the  Church, 
— ^was  confirmed  by  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia 
(1648).  As  a  result  of  the  theory  of  life  so 
expressed  and  instituted,  Germany  has  never 
had  any  true  liberty:  neither  in  religion  nor 
politics,  neither  in  education  nor  industry. 

In  spite,  therefore,  of  all  that  Luther  did  in 
a  large  way  for  liberty  and  progress,  he  himself 
had  no  conception  of  the  need  or  nature  of  civil 
or  religious  freedom,  as  we  understand  this 
term  at  present.    As  Eufiini  has  well  written: 

61 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

**Wit]i  complete  liberty  of  conscience  and  wor- 
ship Luther  would  never  have  anything  to  do'' 
(Eeligious  Liberty,  58).  He  struck  off  papal 
fetters  from  minds  and  hearts,  but  he  had 
others  ready  to  put  on.  However,  many  peo- 
ples, having  escaped  the  old  bondage,  persisted 
in  maintaining  some  measure  of  liberty:  here 
was  the  gain  to  civilization  along  lines  which 
Luther  himself  would  not  have  approved.  As 
a  world-movement,  Protestantism  in  many 
places  finally  overflowed  the  narrow  banks 
within  which  he  would  have  kept  it. 

When  we  read  Luther's  Plea  to  the  German 
Princes,  during  the  Peasants'  War,  in  which 
we  find  the  following  words,  we  can  readily 
understand  why  he  fell  far  short  of  the  Modern 
Spirit:  *^Let  there  be  no  pity;  it  is  the  time 
of  wrath,  not  of  mercy.  He  who  dies  fighting 
for  authority  is  a  martyr  before  God.  So 
wondrous  are  the  times  that  princes  can  merit 
heaven  better  by  bloodshed  than  by  prayers. 
Therefore,  dear  lords,  let  him  who  can,  stab, 
smite,  destroy!"  There  speaks  the  spirit  that 
cruelly  desolated  Belgium.  Similar  yords 
have  recently  been  written  by  eminent  profes- 
sors of  theology  in  German  Universities.  The 
greater  the  pity  and  the  more  terrible  the 
horror!  Surely  a  man  who  could  pen  those 
sentences  could  not  be  expected  to  put  out  the 
fires  of  the  stake  or  break  in  pieces  the  tortur- 
ing machinery  of  the  Inquisition! 

62 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

yi 

Calvin  had  an  imperial  mind  of  vast  logical 
power,  which  crushed  papal  arguments  and 
compelled  respect  for  Protestant  Theology. 
By  his  stern  spirit  and  remarkable  skill  as  a 
teacher,  he  molded  the  life  and  faith  of  various 
countries.  By  his  force  as  a  leader,  he  rescued 
the  Reforma-tion  from  impending  disintegra- 
tion and  permanently  impressed  himself  upon 
the  most  thoughtful  peoples  of  Europe.  John 
Morley  characterized  him  as  *Hhe  stern  and 
austere  stepson  of  the  Christian  God'*;  and 
yet,  he  also  wrote:  **To  omit  Calvin  from  the 
forces  of  western  evolution  is  to  read  history 
with  one  eye  shut.  .  .  .  Calvinism  saved 
Europe." 

Calvin  (1509-1564)  was  born  of  a  cultivated 
family  in  northern  France;  he  was  well  edu- 
cated and  trained  to  the  law  in  Paris ;  the  study 
of  the  ^^New  Learning''  made  him  a  Humanist; 
he  was  then  converted  to  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity by  study  of  the  Bible  (about  1530). 
This  change  of  religion  exiled  him  from 
France,  and  he  poured  his  energies  into  the 
writing  of  his  chief  work,  **The  Institutes  of 
the  Christian  Religion,''  which  was  first  issued 
in  1536  (written  at  Basel),  when  he  was  only 
a  little  over  twenty-six  years  old.  Successive 
editions  were  continually  enlarged. 

This  treatise  is  a  masterpiece  of  logical  and 

63 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

eloquent  exposition — a  systematic  theology: 
elaborate,  comprehensive,  exhaustive.  It  is 
more  original  in  its  form  than  in  its  substance : 
a  restatement  rather  than  a  reconstruction  of 
Christian  theologj^  It  contains  very  little 
religious  sentiment.  It  nowhere  breathes  the 
spirit  of  Jesus.  Every  topic  shines  in  the  dry 
light  of  the  scholastic  intellect.  The  tender  and 
gracious  feelings  of  humanity  are  almost 
wholly  absent.  It  is  hard  and  cold,  but  keen 
and  forceful.  It  was  the  most  powerful  book 
of  the  century,  it  became  the  handbook  of 
Protestantism.  In  the  Institutes  we  have  a 
presentation  of  the  principles  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion  more  logical  than  anything  that  Luther 
ever  wrote;  far  more  intense  than  the  pages 
of  Zwingli;  but  the  teachings  are  far  broader 
and  less  horrible  than  those  of  the  later 
Calvinists,  having  little  of  the  lurid  light  and 
awful  wrath  of  the  pages  of  Jonathan  Edwards. 
Soon  after  the  publication  of  the  ^'Insti- 
tutes,^' Calvin  visited  Geneva,  and  he  was  per- 
suaded to  stop  and  assist  in  the  reform  of  the 
city.  Two  years  later  (1538)  he  was  driven 
out  of  the  town,  but  he  was  brought  back  by 
friends  in  1541,  and  for  twenty-three  years  he 
ruled  as  a  stern  dictator.  And  during  these 
years,  1541-1564,  the  center  of  Protestantism 
was  not  in  Wittenberg,  or  Zurich,  or  London, 
but  in  Geneva.  The  work  of  government  was 
in   the  hands   of   others,   but  his   spirit   was 

64 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

supreme.  Calvin  attempted  to  control  the  en- 
tire life  of  the  people,  and  conform  them  to  his 
interpretation  of  the  Bible.  But  he  unfortu- 
nately exaggerated  its  harsher  Jewish  ele- 
ments, while  he  wholly  neglected  the  more 
gracious  principles  of  both  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel. 

Strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  repress  vice, 
to  uproot  every  vestige  of  Komanism,  to  con- 
form the  beliefs  of  all  to  one  standard.  A 
severe  code  of  morals  was  vigorously  enforced. 
Amusements  were  abolished;  slight  sins  were 
punished  with  death;  even  profanity  and  the 
disobedience  of  children.  All  were  obliged  to 
attend  church  and  keep  the  Sabbath  in  the 
strictest  manner.  The  diet,  clothes,  and  daily 
habits  of  the  people,  in  shop  and  home,  were 
minutely  regula,ted.  It  was  a  Theocracy,  mod- 
eled after  the  sterner  teachings  of  Judaism, 
with  Calvin  ruling  as  the  representative  of 
God. 

A  description  of  some  of  the  punishments  of 
offenders  reads  today  like  the  story  of  an 
amusing  series  of  comic  incidents.  One  man 
was  punished  for  wearing  baggy  knicker- 
bockers in  the  streets,  another  for  talking  to 
his  neighbor  during  sermon  time,  and  a  third 
for  offering  snuff  to  a  companion  during  the 
prayer.  One  woman  was  fined  for  wearing  her 
hair  down  her  back,  another  for  naming  her 
cow  Eebecca — this  being  a  sacred  sctriptural 

65 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

name — and  a  third  for  saying  her  prayers  in 
Latin. 

The  opposition  to  the  policies  of  Calvin  was 
stubborn  and  prolonged.  This  thin-faced,  keen- 
eyed,  sour-looking,  but  dominating  theological 
autocrat  walked  no  easy  path.  From  every 
quarter  for  many  years  constantly  rose  up 
bitter  enemies,  who  were  called  Libertines, 
because  they  were  charged  with  carrying 
liberty  to  license.  Mobs  assailed  him,  children 
hooted  him,  assassins  laid  in  wait  for  him.  But 
he  toiled  on,  neither  sparing  himself  nor  any- 
one else — calm,  stern,  masterful.  He  labored 
all  day  over  affairs  of  Church  and  State,  plan- 
ning, teaching,  preaching.  Men  from  all  over 
the  Christian  world  sat  at  his  feet,  receiving 
instruction  and  inspiration,  to  go  back  to  their 
homes,  like  John  Knox  to  Scotland,  and  spread 
the  Reformation.  Having  time,  often,  to  eat 
only  one  meal  during  the  day,  he  spent  a  large 
part  of  the  night  in  studying  and  writing. 

The  work  that  Calvin  did  was  immense ;  the 
influence  he  exerted  was  tremendous ;  the  cour- 
age he  showed  was  great.  He  could  rush 
among  his  enemies  and  present  his  defenceless 
breast  to  their  lances!  A  harsh  and  gloomy 
man,  with  none  of  the  warm  blood  of  Luther, 
and  he  had  none  of  the  gentleness  of  Zwingli; 
but  he  was  a  powerful  thinker  who  must  be 
respected.  We  may  reject  his  theology  and 
condemn  his  spirit,  but  in  that  transition  time 

66 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

a  strong  man  was  needed,  and  he  gathered  and 
disciplined  the  men  who  saved  Protestantism 
and  made  Europe  free. 

Calvinism  has  been  a  complex  of  contradic- 
tion: Its  mighty  emphasis  on  the  vast  impor- 
tance of  the  individual  has  fostered  the  demo- 
cratic spirit,  but  its  aristocratic  organization 
in  Presbyteries  and  Synods  has  cramped  that 
spirit,  especially  within  the  field  of  religion. 
Its  exaggeration  of  the  severer  elements  of 
ancient  Judaism  has  made  the  conscience 
rigorous  and  impelling,  but  this  over- 
emphasis of  punitive  justice  has  made  Calvin- 
istic  morality  deficient  in  mercy  and  tender- 
ness. Its  vigorous  doctrinal  discipline  has 
generated  intellectual  power,  but  its  dogma- 
tism has  limited  freedom  of  growth  and  has 
often  diverted  that  power  into  sterile  and  un- 
lovely activities.  Its  exaltation  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  has  made  men  courageous,  but 
this  very  demand  for  abject  subjection  to 
Divine  Will  has  discounted  human  worth  and 
obscured  the  grace  of  Jesus.  It  has  accom- 
plished all  that  could  be  done  by  appeals  to  the 
fear  of  the  Law,  but  it  has  failed  to  harvest 
what  alone  grows  in  the  sunshine  of  the  Gospel 
of  love. 


67 


The  Winning  of  Beligious  Liberty 

VII 

The  one  great  blot  upon  the  character  of 
Cahdn  was  his  treatment  of  Michael  Servetus. 
This  act  shows  how  and  why  the  Protestants 
failed  to  put  an  end  to  the  Martyrdom  of  Man. 
Servetus  was  Spanish  bom  (1511) ;  educated  at 
the  Universities  of  Saragossa,  Toulouse,  and 
Paris ;  and  became  famous  in  1531  by  the  pub- 
lication of  his  heretical  book,  De  Trinitatis 
Erroribus,  for  the  writing  of  which  his  friend 
Bucer  of  Strassburg,  really  a  kind-hearted 
man,  stated :  * '  The  author  of  such  a  book  should 
be  disembowelled  and  torn  in  pieces.''  Then 
he  disappears  as  Servetus,  taking  the  name 
Villanovanus  (or  Villenueve — the  ancestral 
name)  to  escape  persecution.  About  1535,  he 
appears  at  Lyons,  under  this  name,  engaged  in 
editing  scientific  works  for  the  Trechsels,  the 
famous  publishers.  The  next  year  he  is  in 
Paris  studying  medicine  under  several  great 
masters,  and  it  was  during  one  of  his  sojourns 
there  that  he  became  acquainted  with  Calvin. 

After  leaving  the  University  of  Paris  two 
years  later,  Servetus  travelled  and  studied  in 
various  places  until  1541,  when  his  college 
friend,  Paulmier,  then  Archbishop  of  Vienne, 
near  Lyons,  invited  Villanovanus  to  locate 
there,  where  he  remained  for  twelve  years, 
practising  medicine  and  continuing  editorial 
work  for  the  Trechsels.    He  edited  an  edition 

68 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

of  Pagnini's  Latin  translation  of  the  Bible,  in 
which  he  showed  great  ability  by  advancing 
important  principles  of  historical  criticism  and 
by  rationalistic  interpretations  of  many  Scrip- 
ture passages.  His  editorial  work  on  an  edi- 
tion of  *^ Ptolemy''  had  also  shown  remarkable 
scientific  and  geographical  knowledge.  At  the 
beginning  of  1553,  he  had  completed  what 
he  regarded  his  chief  work,  Christianismi 
Restitutio  (Christianity  Eestored). 

It  was  in  this  treatise  that  he  described  his 
important  discovery  of  the  pulmonary  circula- 
tion of  the  blood:  It  was  in  1628  that  Harvey 
published  his  larger  contribution  to  physio- 
logical science:  He  had  made  the  discovery 
in  1616, — the  year  that  Shakespere  died. 
Servetus  little  appreciated  the  greatness  of  his 
discovery,  as  he  simply  used  it,  in  his  theo- 
logical discussion,  as  an  illustration  of  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Just  here  Calvin  comes  into  prominence  as 
the  revengeful  enemy  of  Servetus.  Calvin 
knew  who  this  Villanovanus  of  Vienne  was 
and  what  heresies  he  had  advocated.  A  few 
years  before  there  had  been  correspondence 
between  them.  Servetus  had  written  with 
arrogance  and  had  sent  back  to  Calvin  a  copy 
of  his  ^^ Institutes,''  its  margins  filled  with 
caustic  criticisms:  to  which,  in  writing  to  a 
friend,  the  Genevan  Eeformer  had  referred  as 
*Hhe   vomit    of    Servetus."      Calvin   was   not 

69 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

only  shocked  at  the  heresies  of  Servetus 
(^ ^pompous  triflings''),  but  he  was  stirred  to 
personal  hate,  for  in  his  letter  to  his  friend, 
/^arel,  he  wrote  (Feb.  13,  1546) :  *^If  he  comes 
[to  Geneva]  I  will  never  allow  him,  supposing 
my  influence  to  be  worth  anything,  to  depart 

/alive/'  But  Servetus,  though  acrid  in  spirit 
,  at  times,  was  in  reality  a  mild  heretic.  While 
not  a  formal  trinitarian,  he  was  not  an  Arian. 
He  held  an  exalted  view  of  Jesus,  which  was 
impressively  Christocentric,  affirming  that 
Christ  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh, — all  of 
God  that  man  can  know, — practically  the  view 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

If  that  had  been  all,  Calvin  could  have  tol- 
erated his  heresy.  But  he  was  moved  by  per- 
sonal spite  and  revenge.  When  Servetus' 
Restitutio  had  been  printed  (1553)  and  a  thou- 
sand copies  were  ready  to  be  broadcast  over 
Europe,  a  man  acquainted  with  both,  De  Trie, 
then  in  Geneva,  secured  from  Calvin  certain 
pages,  containing  written  matters  by  Servetus, 
— incriminating  evidence,, — and  sent  'them  to 
be  used  by  the  cardinal  archbishop  of  Lyons 
against  him,  under  the  direction  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion. This  was  certainly  a  most  shameful  and 
reprehensible  act:  The  leader  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion  gladly  aiding  its  enemy  in  persecuting  a 
mild  and  distinguished  heretic! 

Servetus  was  arrested  and  put  on  trial 
at    Vienne,    and    hundreds    of    copies    of    his 

70' 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

Restitutio  were  burned.  On  April  7,  however, 
he  escaped  from  the  town  and  wandered  about, 
in  unknown  places,  for  many  weeks.  Then, 
apparently  on  his  way  to  Zurich,  he  walked 
into  Geneva  Sunday  morning,  Aug.  13,  1553, 
went  to  church,  was  recognized,  arrested,  sent 
to  prison,  and  on  the  next  day  he  was  put  on 
trial, — Calvin  exerting  himself  to  the  utmost 
for  his  condemnation.  The  trial  lasted  over 
ten  weeks.  The  enemies  of  Calvin,  the  Liber- 
tines, came  to  the  support  of  Servetus,  for 
political,  not  for  religious,  reasons.  Calvin 
treated  Servetus,  during  the  trial,  with  great 
harshness  and  unfairness.  Finally,  by  a  com- 
paratively small  majority  vote  he  was  con- 
demned and  the  following  sentence  passed 
upon  him  (Oct.  26):  ^^You,  Michael  Servetus, 
shall  be  bound,  and  led  to  the  place  called 
Champel,  and  there,  chained  to  a  pillar,  shall 
be  burnt  alive,  together  with  your  books  and 
your  writings,  until  your  body  is  reduced  to 
ashes,  and  thus  shall  you  end  your  days,  as  an 
example  to  others  who  may  be  tempted  to  com- 
mit your  crime.*' 

Servetus  was  stunned  and  unmanned,  evi- 
dently not  expecting  such  severity.  But  the 
next  day,  when  he  was  chained  to  the  stake, 
and  the  fire  lighted,  he  met  his  fate  with  calm 
heroism,  refusing  to  admit  that  Jesus  was  God, 
the  Eternal  Son,  but  reverently  declaring  that 
he  was   the   Son   of   the   Eternal   God.     The 

71 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

revenge  of  Calvin  was  consummated  and  after- 
wards he  could  write  to  a  friend:  '^You  ought 
to  exterminate  such  monsters  as  I  extermi- 
nated Servetus/'  But  as  Principal  Alexander 
Gordon  has  written:  *^That  slow  fire  at 
Champel  has  burnt  Calvin's  reputation  to  a 
cinder.  .  .  .  He  veiled  the  pity  of  an  iceberg 
in  the  phrases  of  a  saint!'' 

Calvin  tried  to  defend  this  cruel  execution, 
which  horrified  the  world,  accustomed  as  it 
then  was  to  horrible  things,  and  in  1554,  he 
published  an  elaborate  defense  (Defensio),  in 
which,  however,  he  indulged  in  many  false 
statements  and  exhibited  a  most  savage 
temper.  Many  have  excused  his  actions  on  the 
ground  that  what  he  did  was  in  line  with  the 
habit  and  spirit  of  the  time.  But  in  all  fairness 
these  facts  must  be  kept  in  mind: 

(1)  While  it  is  true  that  he  desired  Servetus 
beheaded  rather  than  burned,  nevertheless,  he 
exhausted  his  mighty  resources  as  dictator  of 
Geneva  to  crush  the  life  of  this  personal  enemy. 
He  silenced  those  who  insisted  that  no  law  then 
existed  in  the  city  warranting  a  capital  punish- 
ment, which  was  true,  banishment  being  the 
severest  sentence  permissible.  He  used  his 
great  influence  with  the  neighboring  cantons 
to  secure  their  approval  of  his  course,  and 
while  they  expressed  a  desire  for  his  condemna- 
tion, not  one  called  for  his  death.  The  law 
under  which  Servetus  was  burned  (from  the 

72 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

code  of  Justinian)  had  there  long  been  extinct 
and  was  revived  especially  for  this  occasion. 

(2)  That  Calvin  acted  from  malice  rather 
than  from  mere  fear  of  heresy  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  he  himself  had  often  written 
strongly  in  denunciation  of  the  policy  of  per- 
secuting heretics.  Capital  punishment  in  such 
cases  is  abhorrent  to  his  general  teachings. 
Those  who  try  to  excuse  his  act  by  appealing 
to  the  spirit  of  the  age  are,  indeed,  unjust  to 
Calvin:  they  little  understand  his  pages.  He 
had  himself  forcibly  pleaded  for  better  things. 
There  is,  in  this  case,  neither  defence  nor 
excuse  for  him. 

When  Voltaire  railed  at  Calvin  for  the  burn- 
ing of  Servetus,  a  Genevan  pastor  asked  for 
the  records  of  the  trial  in  order  to  vindicate  the 
great  Eeformer.  But  the  Syndic  Calandrini 
refused  his  request,  saying:  ^^ There  is  no  de- 
fence of  Calvin.  .  .  .  We  wish  the  conduct  of 
Calvin  to  be  buried  in  profound  oblivion.'' 

(3)  In  view  of  all  the  facts,  it  is  simply 
wicked  to  attempt  to  excuse  his  wickedness  in 
the  execution  of  Servetus.  It  is  clear  that  he 
acted  in  the  spirit  of  revenge.  But  evidently 
another  motive  also  moved  him.  Calvin  had 
become  a  world  figure.  He  wanted  to  show 
Europe  that  Protestantism  had  become  strong 
and  stable :  able  to  suppress  disorder  and  crush 
heresy.  To  do  this  would  rob  Eome  of  a  pow- 
erful argument  long  used:    the  incapacity  of 

73 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Reformers  to  guarantee  the  safety  of  the  State 
and  the  protection  of  Christianity.  The  execu- 
tion of  Servetus  would,  therefore,  be  good 
policy.  His  Defensio  was  addressed  quite  as 
much  to  Catholics  as  to  liberal  critics.  It  was 
meant  to  prove  that  Protestantism  stood  for 
something  even  more  solid  than  Rome  itself. 
He  was  anxious  to  kill  Servetus,  not  only  from 
spite,  but  to  checkmate  the  Papacy  and  to 
harden  the  Reformation  into  a  rigid  orthodoxy. 


vin 

While  the  flames  were  burning  Servetus  at 
Geneva,  Faustus  Socinus  was  a  lad  of  fourteen 
(born  1539)  at  his  home  in  Sienna,  Italy;  and 
Francis  David  (born  1510)  was  Lutheran 
Bishop  in  his  home  town,  Kolozsvar,  Transyl- 
vania. Both  these  men  played  important  parts 
in  helping  to  stop  the  Martyrdom  of  Man. 

Faustus  Socinus  imbibed,  as  a  young  man, 
the  liberal  religious  views  of  his  uncle,  Laelius 
(born  1525),  who  spent  the  last  fifteen  years 
of  his  life  at  Zurich  (1547-1562) :  ^^a  gentleman 
out  in  search  for  a  religion'^;  on  friendly  terms 
with  Protestant  leaders,  esteemed  but  sus- 
pected by  Calvin;  resembling  Erasmus  in  tem- 
perament; arguing  against  the  popular  beliefs 
of  the  time,  but  in  so  gracious  a  manner  that 
he  was  left  unmolested  to  the  end  of  his  days. 
When  he  died,  the  nephew,  Faustus,  hurried 

74 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

to  Zurich  and  took  charge  of  his  uncle's  effects. 
He  was  probably  deeply  influenced  by  the 
manuscripts  which  he  found. 

After  twelve  years  in  the  service  of  Isabella, 
daughter  of  Cosmo  de  Medici,  archduke  of 
Florence,  Faustus  spent  some  three  years  in 
study  at  Basel,  writing  during  this  period  a 
notable  work.  Be  Jesu  Christo  Servatore, 
which  powerfully  advocated  a  more  spiritual 
view  of  Jesus'  ministry  than  that  formulated 
by  the  great  scholastic  Anselm  (1033-1109)  in 
Cur  Veus  Homo,  and  then  generally  held  by 
both  Catholics  and  Protestants.  Socinus  urged 
a  more  ethical  interpretation  of  the  Atonement, 
the  main  elements  of  which  are  now  the  com- 
mon property  of  modern  theology.  Socinus 
filled  his  pages  with  earnest  pleas  for  a  simple 
piety;  he  used  Scripture  rationally  but  rever- 
ently; and  all  his  references  to  Jesus  breathed 
a  tender  spirit.  This  work  was  long  and  widely 
circulated  in  manuscript  copies,  and  it  was  not 
published  until  1594  (in  Poland),  only  ten  years 
before  his  death. 

During  the  middle  decades  of  the  sixteenth 
century  a  Protestant  movement  was  well  under 
way  in  the  then  flourishing  Kingdom  of  Poland. 
Catherine  Vogel,  one  of  its  first  martyrs,  had 
been  burned  at  the  stake  in  1539,  the  year 
Socinus  was  born.  In  1565,  this  movement  had 
divided,  the  larger  party  remaining  Orthodox 
and    the    smaller    pushing    on    toward    more 

75 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

rationalistic  views.  In  1579,  Socinus  went  to 
Poland,  settled  in  Cracow,  and  he  remained 
in  Poland  until  his  death  twenty-five  years 
later.  He  soon  became  the  leader  of  the  Polish 
Liberals.  For  some  years,  his  work  prospered, 
especially  among  the  aristocracy;  and,  for  a 
time,  it  gave  promise  of  large  results.  These 
Liberals,  both  before  his  day  and  then  under 
his  leadership,  founded  schools,  produced  a 
voluminous  literature  and  showed,  not  only  a 
free  and  gracious  spirit,  but  sent  out  earnest 
missionaries.  Toward  the  end  of  the  century, 
the  more  fanatical  Catholics  obtained  control 
of  the  government  and  instigated  repressive 
measures  against  these  Liberals.  Socinus  was 
twice  mobbed.  His  books  and  manuscripts 
were  burned.  He  died  at  Luclavice  in  1604, 
^*  weary  and  exhausted,  not  by  life,  but  by 
persecution  and  hardship.''  By  1660,  the 
Polish  movement  to  which  he  had  given  his  life 
was  stamped  out  by  most  brutal  measures, 
instigated  by  the  Jesuits,  having  existed  for 
about  a  hundred  years. 

Socinus  became  famous  throughout  Europe. 
He  gave  his  name  to  a  form  of  religious 
thought, — Socinianism, — ^which  for  many  years 
profoundly  influenced  the  world:  adopted  by 
many  eminent  thinkers  but  never  popular  any- 
where among  the  masses.  The  authoritative 
expression  of  this  Faith  was  set  forth  in  The 
Bacovian   Catechism   which   was    chiefly   pre- 

7^ 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

pared  by  Socinus:  first  printed,  in  Polish,  in 
1605,  a  year  after  his  death, — in  Latin  in  1609. 
It  is  a  simple,  nndogmatic  exposition  of 
Socinian  principles  of  religion.  Abstruse 
dogmas  are  nowhere  discussed;  appeals  to 
tradition  are  infrequent;  emphasis  is  placed 
on  the  spirit  of  the  life;  the  Bible  is  used  for 
its  conduct  values;  the  person  of  Jesus  is 
lovingly  presented  and  his  Gospel  forcibly 
advocated.  In  England  during  the  first  half 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  this  document  was 
more  bitterly  attacked  and  more  frequently 
burned  than  any  other  book. 

In  the  Preface  of  the  Racovian  Catechism 
(Rees'  Eng.  Ed.  1818,  pp.  XCVI.,  CIIL),  we 
find  these  words  which  exactly  express  the. 
teachings  of  Socinus,  written  by  a  disciple 
some  years  after  his  death:  ^* Whilst  we  com-  ^^ 
pose  a  Catechism,  we  prescribe  nothing  to  any 
man;  whilst  we  declare  our  own  opinions,  we 
oppress  no  one.  Let  every  person  enjoy  the 
freedom  of  his  own  judgment  in  religion;  only 
let  it  be  permitted  to  us  also  to  exhibit  our 
views  of  divine  things,  without  injuring  or 
calumniating  others.  For  this  is  the  Golden 
Liberty  of  Prophesying  which  the  sacred  books 
of  the  New  Testament  so  earnestly  recommend 
to  us,  and  wherein  we  are  instructed  by  the  ex- 
ample of  the  primitive  apostolic  church.  ... 
Charity  teaches  us  that  no  one  should  be  in- 
jured, that  scandal,  calumnies,  railing  accusa 

77 


V 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

tions  against  our  neighbor,  invidious  and  un- 
fair representations  of  the  opinions  of  others, 
should  be  avoided ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  that 
our  equity,  gentleness,  and  modesty  should  be 
known  to  all  men. '  ^ 

In  the  Catechism  itself,  there  is  no  extended 
discussion  of  toleration  or  religious  freedom. 
But  in  a  chapter  on  the  *^  Discipline  of  the 
Church,''  the  following  punishments  are 
described  as  suitable  for  the  correction  of 
offenders, — not  so  much  unbelievers  or  mis- 
believers as  violators  of  moral  laws:  **By  our 
shunning  the  society  and  conversation  of  such  a 
person  and  refusing  to  eat  with  him;  though 
we  do  not  regard  him  as  an  enemy,  but 
admonish  him  as  a  brother''  (sec.  VIII.,  chap. 
III.).  How  impiously  mild  such  penalties  must 
then  have  appeared  to  Pope  and  Inquisitor ;  to 
Lutheran,  Calvinist,  and  Anglican! 

It  is  a  mournful  fact  that  the  English  Parlia- 
ment during  the  Commonwealth,  should  have 
voted,  April  2,  1652,  that  all  copies  of  the  com- 
monly called  Racovan  Catechism  be  seized  by 
the  sheriffs  of  London  and  Middlesex  and 
burned  on  the  following  Tuesday  and  Thurs- 
day! And  those  were  the  days  of  Cromwell, 
Vane,  and  Milton,  who,  however,  were  innocent 
of  its  condemnation  as  *^  blasphemous,  erro- 
neous, and  scandalous!" 

Of  this  Catechism,  a  competent  Italian 
author,    Ruffini,    recently    wrote:    **What    an 

78 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

abyss  between  this  confession  and  those  of  all 
the  other  Protestant  churches,  Swiss,  Scottish, 
Belgian,  Saxon  [and  he  might  have  added 
Dutch, — :that  of  Dort],  which  affirm  the  duty 
of  the  magistrate  to  punish  heresy*'  (Religious 
Liberty,  87).  In  fact,  this  advocacy  of  tolera- 
tion by  Socinus  and  his  followers  was  counted 
against  them  as  something  even  worse  than 
their  heresy  respecting  the  Godhead.  This  was 
the  stand  taken  by  two  eminent  champions  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  Jurien  wrote  (1687) : 
^^The  Socinian  dogma  [the  plea  for  toleration] 
is  the  most  dangerous  of  all  the  Socinian  sect, 
powerful  to  ruin  Christianity  and  establish  in- 
difference in  religion. '  *  And  Bossuet,  the  next 
year,  made  a  similar  statement.  On  the  other 
hand,  all  writers  now  agree  that  the  praise 
of  Lecky  is  just:  ^^ Socinus  was  so  distinctly 
the  apostle  of  toleration  that  this  was  long  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  his 
secf  (Rationalism:  II.,  51). 

Surely,  the  world  needs  to  remember  and 
honor  Faustus  Socinus  as  one  of  the  greatest 
and  noblest  champions  of  religious  liberty.  He 
was  himself  the  Darwin  of  religious  contro- 
versy, fair,  just,  courteous,  in  an  age,  when 
even  the  greatest,  from  Luther  to  Milton,  in- 
dulged in  bitterness  and  even  vulgarity  toward 
their  opponents.  He  advanced  the  cause  of 
toleration  both  by  eloquent  teaching  and  by 
noble    action.     The    *  *  Socinians  * '    have    dis- 

79 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

appeared  and  his  particular  views  of  Jesus 
have  been  outgrown  even  by  the  churches  which 
revere  his  name.  It  was  in  an  obscure  comer 
that  he  labored,  and  the  organization  which  he 
led  soon  vanished  in  tortures  and  flames.  But 
the  principle  of  toleration  which  he  advocated 
has  become  a  precious  and  organic  part  of 
modern  civilization.  He  did  much  directly  to 
stop  the  Martyrdom  of  Man,  and  he  indirectly 
did  much  to  make  the  Pilgrim  Glory  possible. 

The  name  of  Francis  David  is  not  found  in 
the  story  of  religious  freedom,  as  commonly 
told,  but  he  desei*ves  high  honor  as  one  who 
not  only  advocated  toleration,  but  led  to  its 
enactment  as  a  national  law.  And  this  was  done 
when  Elizabeth  was  a  young  queen,  persecut- 
ing heretics;  when  Scotland  was  ablaze  with 
flames  of  religious  hate;  when  leaders  in  Ger- 
many, Catholic  and  Protestant,  were  passing 
death  sentences  upon  each  other ;  when  Inquisi- 
tors were  active  in  France,  Spain  and  Italy; 
and  when  William  of  Orange  was  just  begin- 
ning to  plead  for  the  rights  of  Anabaptists. 

Francis  David  was  bom  in  Kolozsvar, 
Transylvania,  1510, — a  year  younger  than 
Calvin,  a  year  older  than  Servetus.  He  went 
at  thirty, — though  of  Catholic  family, — to 
Wittenberg  to  complete  his  education.  After 
teaching,  on  his  return  home,  in  a  Catholic 
school  for  a  short  time,  he  became  a  popular 
preacher  to  the  Lutherans  of  his  native  city. 

80 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

His  mind  broadened,  and  he  soon  became 
bishop  of  the  Calvinists  in  the  same  town. 
Then  by  1567,  he  became  a  ra^tionalist  in  his 
interpretation  of  the  nature  and  ministry  of 
Jesus;  and,  as  court  preacher  to  Prince  John 
Sigismund  (a  liberal  from  Poland),  he  stepped 
into  a  prominent  position  as  the  powerful 
advocate  of  a  faith  which  was  soon  to  become 
even  more  advanced  than  that  of  Faustus 
Socinus.  Certainly  a  remarkably  rapid  relig- 
ious evolution! 

The  principality  of  Transylvania  was  then 
in  a  tumult  of  religious  excitement:  four 
parties  contending  for  supremacy:  Catholics, 
Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Liberals, — soon  to  be 
called  *  ^  Unitarians ' '  (1600),  the  first  use  of  the 
word  as  a  sect-name.  On  Jan.  6,  1568,  a  Diet 
met  at  Torda  to  consider  the  religious  situa- 
tion. David  by  his  eloquence  brought  the 
assembly  to  his  way  of  thinking,  and  the  Edict 
was  adopted  which  may  be  found  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  chapter. 

This  was  indeed  a  very  great  achievement: 
a  wide  liberty  of  worship  was  established  by 
law.  This  was  the  most  advanced  position  as 
yet  taken  in  Christendom.  It  was  thirty  years 
to  the  less  liberal  Edict  of  Nantes  (1598)  and 
a  hundred  and  twenty-one  years  to  the  English 
Act  of  Toleration,  which  was  not  nearly  so 
broad.  It  was  four  years  before  the  adoption 
of  the  Polish  Declaration  of  Cracow   (1572), 

81 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

which,  formulated  by  those  who  were  soon  fol- 
lowers of  Socinus,  was  similar  in  its  general 
spirit,  but  not  so  significant. 

This  ** heavenly  condition,"  putting  an  end 
for  the  time  to  the  Martyrdom  of  Man,  did  not, 
however,  last  very  long.  The  death  of  Sigis- 
mund  brought  a  nephew  to  the  throne  who  was 
a  mild  Catholic,  and  then  shortly  another 
nephew,  Barthory,  a  bigot,  came  to  the  front, 
who  lighted  again  the  old  torches  of  hate, 
and  the  former  miseries  soon  followed.  The 
Liberals  were  not,  however,  annihilated  though 
terribly  persecuted.  Over  a  hundred  churches 
of  that  faith  now  exist  in  Hungary.  But,  sad 
to  relate,  David  was  tried  for  heresy, — refus- 
ing to  offer  invocations  to  Christ, — condemned, 
and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life  in  a 
dungeon  at  Deva,  where,  after  ^ve  months,  he 
died,  Nov.  15,  1579. 

Just  here  we  clearly  see  the  limitation  of  all 
the  measures  advocated  or  attempted  during 
the  sixteenth  century,  for  the  emancipation  of 
Christianity  from  priest  and  king;  the  libera- 
tion of  both  Church  and  State  from  an  alliance 
which  necessarily  brings  intolerance  and  perse- 
cution. No  permanent  basis  for  freedom  was, 
as  yet,  secured.  No  assurance  of  continued  re- 
ligious liberty  can  be  established,  solely,  by  tol- 
erant sentiments  or  royal  decrees.  The  death 
of  a  ruler,  the  fall  of  a  dynasty,  the  vote  of  a 
parliament  may,  at  any  moment,  reverse  the 

82 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

humane  order  and  open  the  floodgates  of  pro- 
scription. Although  prophets  may  create  a 
temporary  tolerance  and  rulers  momentarily 
stay  the  hand  of  the  Inquisitor,  a  bigot  with  a 
more  commanding  personality  may  suddenly 
overwhelm  humanity  in  all  the  former  cruel- 
ties. The  work  of  both  David  and  Socinus  in 
behalf  of  religious  freedom  was  most  praise- 
worthy. But  it  did  not  strike  root  deep  enough. 
There  must  be  a  more  radical  reorganization 
of  piety  and  politics :  a  new  adjustment  of  civil 
government  and  religious  organization. 


IX 

We  come  now  to  one  who  worked  upon  a 
more  conspicuous  platform  than  David  or 
Socinus,  but  in  the  same  humane  spirit  and  for 
the  same  high  end:  William  of  Orange  (1533- 
1584),  often  named  the  Washington  of  the 
Netherlands.  He  lived  a  comparatively  short 
and  stormy  life,  but  he  performed  monumental 
services  for  the  cause  of  religious  liberty.  He 
was  born  a  Catholic,  but  at  the  age  of  thirty- 
five  (1568),  he  adopted  the  Calvinistic  faith: 
His  public  profession  of  it  was  delayed  until 
Oct.  23,  1573.  He  early  became  a  prominent 
figure  in  the  public  affairs  of  the  Low  Coun- 
tries, but  he  long  kept  himself  in  patient  re- 
straint, winning  the  title:  The  Silent.  He 
reached  the   position   of   Stadtholder   a  year 

83 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

before  the  memorable  siege  of  Leiden  (1573). 
He  did  more  than  any  one  else  to  secure  the 
practical  independence  of  Holland  (1581) ;  the 
next  year  he  became  the  chief  ruler  of  Holland 
and  Zeeland,  and  two  years  later  he  was 
assassinated. 

Before  WiUiam  became  a  Protestant,  he 
showed  by  the  Antwerp  Agreement  (1566),  a 
remarkably  tolerant  spirit:  he  assigned  three 
churches  to  the  Calvinists  and  demanded  that 
Catholics  and  Eeformers  live  in  good  fellow- 
ship, indulging  in  neither  taunts  nor  hostility. 
The  very  year  that  he  embraced  Calvinism,  he 
wrote  to  John  Bazius  (1568):  *^  Should  we 
obtain  power  over  any  city  or  cities,  let  the 
communities  of  papists  be  as  much  respected 
and  protected  as  possible.  Let  them  be  over- 
come, not  with  violence,  but  with  gentle  mind- 
edness  and  virtuous  treatment.*' 

Four  years  after  he  became  a  Protestant 
(1572),  he  instructed  Lieutenant  Sonoy:  *^To 
see  that  the  Word  of  God  was  preached,  with- 
out, however,  suffering  any  hindrance  to  the 
Roman  Church  in  the  exercise  of  its  religion. ' ' 
This  was  surely  returning  good  for  evil,  for  a 
little  over  three  years  before,  the  Inquisition 
and  Philip  II.  had  consigned  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  country  to  death  for  heresy!  In 
writing  to  the  magistrates  of  Middelburg 
(1578),  he  gave  this  direction  respecting  the 
commonly  hated  Anabaptists  (the  first  tolera- 

84 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

tion  granted  to  them  by  any  European  Ruler) : 
*^We  declare  to  you,  therefore,  that  you  have 
no  right  to  trouble  yourselves  with  any  man's 
conscience,  so  long  as  nothing  is  done  to  cause 
private  harm  or  public  scandal.''  And  the 
next  year  (1579),  he  saw  to  it  that  this  principle 
was  embodied  in  the  Union  of  Utrecht  (the 
foundation  of  the  Dutch  Eepublic) :  **  Every 
one  shall  be  free  in  the  practice  of  his  religious 
belief"  (Article  XIII. ).  These  few  facts  show 
how  "William  of  Orange  came,  not  only  to  hold 
the  doctrine  of  religious  toleration,  but  also 
how  he  embodied  the  principle  of  religious 
freedom  (something  much  larger  and  nobler) 
in  the  basic  law  of  his  country.  And  to  him, 
the  Reformer  who  became  a  bigot  or  indulged 
in  persecution  seemed  doubly  odious. 

The  judgment  passed  upon  this  great  char- 
acter by  Motley  is  just :  *  *  He  was  the  champion 
of  the  political  rights  of  his  country,  but  before 
all  he  was  the  defender  of  its  religion.  Liberty 
of  conscience  for  his  people  was  his  first 
object."  ...  He  was  a  man  **who,  in  an  age 
when  to  think  was  a  crime,  when  bigotry  and 
a  persecuting  spirit  characterized  Romanists 
and  Lutherans,  Calvinists  and  Zwinglians, 
dared  to  announce  freedom  of  conscience  as  the 
great  object  for  which  noble  natures  should 
strive ;  who,  in  an  age  when  toleration  was  a 
vice,  had  the  manhood  to  cultivate  it  as  a 
virtue"  (Dutch  Republic,  II.  145,  237). 

85 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 


The  statement  of  Hallam:  ''The  tolerant 
spirit  rose  out  of  the  ashes  of  Servetns'' 
(Literature  of  Europe,  Vol.  II.,  chap.  I.,  §29)  is 
more  felicitous  than  accurate.  The  next  hun- 
dred years  and  more  saw  more  intolerance  and 
persecution  in  Western  Europe  than  any  other 
period.  In  fact,  that  terrible  execution  con- 
firmed Protestants  in  their  worst  ways.  It 
helped  to  light  fires  that  burned  fiercely  for 
years.  The  apt  pupil  of  Calvin,  John  Knox, 
soon  went  back  from  Geneva  to  Scotland,  and 
until  his  death  in  1572,  he  enforced  rigorous 
persecutions  against  all  who  disagreed  with 
him  in  matters  of  religious  belief. 

Philip  Melanchthon,  one  of  the  gentlest  of 
the  Eef ormers,  showed  the  evil  influence  of  the 
example  by  writing  to  Calvin  a  letter  of  con- 
gratulations, stating  that  the  burning  of  Ser- 
ve tus  ought  to  be  an  excellent  advertisement 
of  Geneva!  Under  Elizabeth,  one  of  the 
broadest-minded  rulers  of  her  time,  not  simply 
Catholics,  but  English  Protestants,  were  im- 
prisoned, fined,  and  burned,  especially  Anabap- 
tists, about  1575.  From  1583  to  1593,  occurred 
the  notable  cases  of  Copping,  Thacker,  Penry, 
Barrow  and  many  others.  Even  as  late  as  the 
middle  decades  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
there  were  more  heretics   (Quakers,  Baptists, 

86 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

Unitarians)  languishing  in  English  jails  than 
at  any  other  time. 

In  the  Netherlands,  from  the  death  of  Calvin 
(1564)  to  the  departure  of  the  Pilgrims  (1620), 
in  spite  of  the  mighty  influence  of  William  of 
Orange,  persecutions  were  numerous  and  hor- 
rible. Catholics  and  Protestants  killing  each 
other  and  Protestants  slaying  Protestants.  In 
his  admirable  essay  on  Grotius,  Andrew  D. 
White,  after  alluding  to  his  plea,  addressed  to 
the  Dutch,  to  be  tolerant,  made  at  this  time, 
wrote  this  statement:  ^^On  the  great  mass  of 
his  countrymen  the  modern  idea  of  toleration 
had  not  even  dawned''  (Seven  Great  States- 
men, 68).  While  the  motives  of  the  Thirty 
Years'  War  (1618-1648)  were  chiefly  political, 
nevertheless,  in  that  terrible  time  the  religious 
passions  of  the  German  peoples,  Protestants  as 
well  as  Catholics,  exhibited  themselves  in  many 
cruel  ways. 

The  stand  taken  by  William  of  Orange  was 
both  noble  and  notable.  But  the  situation 
which  developed  soon  after  his  death  shows 
that  even  in  the  Netherlands  no  permanent  and 
complete  relief  from  the  evils  of  intolerance 
and  persecution  had  been  secured.  The 
Martyrdom  of  Man  could  not  be  ended  simply 
by  royal  decree,  by  pulpit  pleas  for  religious 
freedom,  or  by  the  growth  of  rationalism. 
Something  more  was  needed  than  a  tolerant 
spirit  or  an  intellectual  discovery.     The  difii- 

87 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

culty  lay  right  here:  A  new  king  might  in  an 
hour,  as  has  already  been  stated,  revoke  an 
Edict  granting  liberty  of  conscience  and  so 
change  the  currents  of  history:  Witness  the 
course  of  ** Bloody  Mary''  in  England;  the 
failure  of  the  Edict  of  Torda  in  Transylvania, 
the  Eevocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (1685), 
which  at  best  had  given  French  Protestants 
only  an  imperfect  and  precarious  freedom. 
Something  more  organic,  radical,  fundamental 
had  to  be  done :  a  reorganization  of  politics  and 
religion;  a  readjustment  of  Church  and  State. 
As  commendable  as  the  conduct  of  William 
was,  he  did  not  clearly  see  the  necessity  for  the 
separation  of  Church  and  State,  what  Marsilius 
and  Wiclif  did  imperfectly  understand.  He 
pleaded  for  liberty  of  conscience  and  obeyed 
the  generous  impulse  himself,  but  he  did  not 
use  the  only  means  necessary  to  make  this 
principle  a  permanent  rule  among  men.  On 
this  account,  twenty-five  years  after  his  death, 
Arminian  magistrates  (1609)  were  claiming 
the  right  to  regulate  all  religious  matters  by 
force.  Ten  years  still  later,  when  the  Calvin- 
ists  gained  a  majority  in  the  Netherlands,  two 
hundred  Arminian  pastors  were  driven  from 
their  pulpits,  Barneveldt,  *Hhe  most  venerable 
citizen  of  the  Dutch  Republic,''  was  beheaded, 
and  Grotius,  another  ardent  Arminian,  an 
epoch-making  man,  was  imprisoned,  but  after- 
wards escaped  into  exile.     That  land  deserves 

88 


Early  Prophets  and  Protestant  Failures 

the  title,  ''Brave  Little  Holland'';  and  yet,  the 
Protestant  Dutch,  even  as  late  as  1630  and 
after,  were  often  intolerant  ''with  a  placid 
arrogance  which  papal  infallibility  could 
scarcelv  exceed''  (Motley,  United  Netherlands, 
IV.  548). 

The  general  situation  is  made  clearer  by  the 
case  of  the  broad-minded  Anglican  clergyman, 
William  Chillingworth  (1603-1644).  He  could 
nobly  write  (1637) :  "We  wish  heartily  that  all 
controversies  were  ended  ...  in  the  mean- 
while think  it  best  to  content  ourselves  with, 
and  persuade  others  unto,  an  unity  of  charity 
and  mutual  toleration.  .  .  .  Christians  must  be 
taught  to  set  a  higher  value  upon  these  high 
points  of  faith  and  obedience  wherein  they 
agree  than  upon  the  matters  of  less  moment 
wherein  they  differ"  (Religion  of  Protestants, 
Chap.  II.,  §85;  Chap.  IV.,  §40).  Even  Arch- 
bishop Laud  heartily  approved  this  treatise! 
But  what  of  it?  The  Laudian  persecutions 
continued:  heretics  were  fined,  imprisoned, 
banished,  mutilated,  and  beheaded.  This  gen- 
erous sentiment  did  not  go  to  the  root  of  the 
difficulty. 

Another  illustration  drives  home  the  same 
truth.  John  Fiske  was  warmly  appreciative  of 
the  spirit  of  the  Puritans,  in  its  best  estate. 
But  he  made  this  statement,  which  is  a  very 
true  statement:  "The  most  advanced  liberal- 
ism of  Elizabeth's  time  was  not  to  be  found  in 

89 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Puritanism  but  in  the  magnificent  treatise  on 
^Ecclesiastical  Polity'  by  the  churchman  Rich- 
ard Hooker''  (1554-1600).  The  spirit  of  its 
pages  is,  indeed,  remarkably  broad  and 
gracious.  But  if  all  Englishmen  had  been  dis- 
ciples of  Hooker,  in  regard  to  church  organiza- 
tion, there  would  have  been  no  Pilgrim  Glory, 
no  Commonwealth,  no  Free  America!  More- 
over, in  just  the  system  here  so  eloquently 
described,  the  Anglican  Establishment,  have 
rooted  many  of  the  wrongs  that  have  cursed 
England,  and  from  it  also  have  come  many  of 
the  defects  of  English  life.  Even  the  most 
liberal  spirit  could  not  remove  the  evils  inher- 
ent in  the  unholy  alliance  of  Church  and  State. 
There  must  be  a  weapon  with  sharper  edge, 
wielded  by  clearer  insight  and  vaster 
enthusiasm. 


90 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  INDEPENDENT  CONGREGATION 


CHURCH  AND  STATE:  SEPARATE  BUT 
SYMPATHETIC 

"Magistrates  have  no  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all, 
but  only  as  any  other  Christians — The  Church  is  God's 
husbandry  and  not  theirs ;  it  is  his  building  and  not  theirs 
— This  freedom  have  all  Christians,  that  they  consider 
what  is  lawful  and  what  is  profitable,  what  they  may  do 
and  what  is  expedient,  and  in  no  case  to  be  brought  under 
the  power  of  anything — Therefore  the  magistrate's  com- 
mandment must  not  be  a  rule  unto  me  of  this  and  that 
duty,  but  as  I  see  it  agree  with  the  Word  of  God — The 
Lord's  kingdom  is  not  by  force,  as  be  the  kingdoms  of 
this  world — Magistrates  may  do  nothing  concerning  the 
Church,  but  only  civilly,  and  as  civil  magistrates;  that 
is,  they  have  not  that  authority  over  the  Church,' — but 
only  to  rule  the  Commonwealth  in  all  outward  justice,  to 
maintain  the  right  welfare  and  honor  thereof,  with  out- 
ward power,  bodily  punishment,  and  civil  forcing  of  men. 
And  therefore  also  because  the  Church  is  in  the  Common- 
wealth, it  is  of  their  charge:  that  is  concerning  the  out- 
ward provision  and  outward  justice,  they  are  to  look  to 
it;  but  to  compel  religion,  to  plant  churches  by  power, 
and  to  force  a  submission  to  ecclesiastical  government  by 
laws  and  penalties  belongeth  not  to  them — Yea,  the 
Church  hath  more  authority  concerning  church  govern- 
ment than  magistrates — Go  to  therefore,  and  the  outward 
power  and  civil  forcings,  let  us  leave  to  the  magistrates: 
to  rule  the  Commonwealth  in  all  outward  justice,  belong- 
eth to  them ;  but  let  the  Church  rule  in  spiritual  wise,  and 
not  in  worldly  manner ;  by  a  lively  law  preached  and  not 
by  a  civil  law  written !  by  holiness  in  inward  and  outward 
obedience,  and  not  in  straightness  of  the  outward  only." 

A  Treatise  of  Reformation  Without 

Tarrying  for  Any. 

(Spelling  modernized). 

By  Robert  Browne:  1582. 

92 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  INDEPENDENT   CONGREGATION 


The  Pilgrim  Glory  roots  in  the  distant  past : 
a  past  far  more  distant,  even,  than  the  four- 
teenth or  sixteenth  century.  It  is  the  flowering 
of  methods  of  religious  organization  that  ante- 
date the  rise  of  Christianity.  But  they  were 
not  understood  even  by  those  who,  in  the  early 
days  of  the  Reformation,  became  advocates  of 
toleration.  These  workers  for  religious  free- 
dom did  much  to  prepare  the  way,  but  a  radical 
reorganization  of  civic  and  religious  forces  was 
necessary.  Without  such  men  as  Luther, 
Erasmus,  Socinus,  and  William  of  Orange, 
there  would  have  been  no  Pilgrim  Glory;  but 
if  others  had  not  introduced  a  new  method  into 
Church  and  State,  the  immortal  Mayflower 
Band  would  never  have  existed. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  early 
Reformers,  while  they  planted  themselves  upon 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  to  which  they  turned 
for  supreme  authority,  failed  to  understand 
what  the  New  Testament  teaches  respecting 
the  constitution  or  organization  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.     The  great  Protestant  Leaders 

93 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

could  have  stopped  the  Martyrdom  of  Man, 
emancipated  the  Gospel  from  priest  and  king, 
opened  a  broad  highway  for  human  progress, 
and  achieved  a  more  spiritual  Christianity,  if 
they  had  understood  and  followed  the  New 
Testament  teaching.  That  teaching  is  this: 
The  local  Church  is  an  independent  congrega- 
tion, its  members  separated  from  the  world 
under  the  sole  authority  of  Christ;  asking 
nothing  of  the  State  except  to  be  let  alone,  but 
loyal  to  the  State  so  far  as  possible;  all  mem- 
bers equal  and  all  officers  elective;  the  whole 
congregation  participating  in  all  church 
affairs;  each  congregation  free  to  live  its  own 
life,  not  subject  to  other  congregations,  but 
anxious  to  serve  them  in  all  brotherly 
ministries. 

Luther,  as  has  been  stated,  looked,  for  a 
moment,  with  favor  upon  a  form  of  religious 
organization  somewhat  similar  to  this  New 
Testament  ideal  and  practice.  He  seemed, 
from  the  following  statement,  to  have  had  some 
conception  of  the  evils  due  to  the  union  of 
Church  and  State :  ^  ^  The  laws  of  the  civil  mag- 
istrate's  government  extend  no  farther  than 
over  the  body  or  goods,  and  to  that  which  is 
external;  for  over  the  soul  God  will  not  suffer 
any  man  to  rule,  only  he  himself  will  rule 
there.''  But  these  words  represent  his  earlier 
and  transient  thought,  rather  than  his  later 
and  permanent  conviction  and  policy. 

94 


The  Independent  Congregation 

But  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Knox  wholly  failed 
to  see  what  lay  so  prominently  before  them  in 
the  Biblical  pages.  Indeed,  early  Presbyte- 
rians and  kindred  bodies  were  much  given  to 
intolerance  and  persecution  and  stoutly  in- 
sisted on  the  union  of  Church  and  State:  re- 
ligion must  have  the  support  of  the  strong  arm 
of  the  magistrate.  The  three  men, — Cromwell, 
Cranmer,  Parker, — ^who  were  most  prominent 
in  guiding  the  fortunes  of  the  Anglican  Church 
through  the  sixteenth  century,  did  not  have  the 
faintest  conception  of  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  on  this  subject.  Moreover,  it  never 
entered  into  the  minds  of  such  noble  apostles 
of  toleration  as  Francis  David,  Faustus 
Socinus,  or  William  of  Orange  that  the  only 
radical  and  permanent  solution  of  the  great 
problem  lay  in  the  restoration  of  the  Church  to 
its  original  New  Testament  form. 

n 

To  this  deeper  rootage  of  the  Pilgrim  Glory 
we  must  now  turn. 

When  man  discovered  himself  as  a  moral 
being,  and  came  to  view  his  relations  to  God  as 
moral  obligations,  he  abandoned  the  practice 
of  sacrifice,  and  reinterpreted  religion  as  a 
spiritual  service, — an  inward  life  flowing  forth 
in  reverence  and  righteousness.  Men  arose  in 
Egypt,  Judasa  and  Greece,  who  held  these  new 

95 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

views  of  nature  and  life ;  but  being  only  heralds 
of  a  new  day,  they  simply  abandoned  the  old 
sacrificial  practices,  without  attempting  a  re- 
organization of  religion  on  the  basis  of  their 
spiritual  discovery.  The  practice  of  sacrifice 
still  continued  among  the  people  in  general, 
and  there  was  as  yet  no  public  administration 
of  religion  as  both  a  spiritual  worship  and  a 
humane  service. 

But  if  the  new  thought  of  God  as  moral  law, 
and  of  man  as  a  spiritual  being,  was  to  make 
itself  felt  in  the  world;  if  religion  was  to  have 
a  new  method  consonant  with  the  facts  of 
natural  law  and  the  ethics  of  human  life,  an 
administration  of  piety  had  to  be  created,  free 
from  the  sacrificial  theory  and  practice,  and 
so  spiritualized  as  to  express  the  truth  that 
man  is  a  spirit  related  to  the  Infinite  Spirit. 

In  other  words,  when  man  began  to  see  that 
the  office  of  religion  is  not  to  propitiate  God 
but  to  develop  the  spirituality  of  the  soul,  then 
it  was  evident  that  religious  methods  must  pass 
from  sacrificial  to  educational  forms.  The 
development  of  such  a  new  method  was  the 
problem  which  Judaism  and  Christianity 
worked  out.  In  many  respects  it  was  one  of  the 
greatest  problems  in  the  historic  evolution  of 
humanity, — this  creation  of  a  corporate  agency 
to  cultivate  religion  as  a  spiritual  development 
in  the  line  of  heart-worship  and  social  service. 

The  Hebrew  prophets,  some  eight  centuries 
96 


The  Independent  Congregation 

before  Christ,  affirmed  that  God  is  Infinite 
Holiness,  who  demands  of  man  only  righteous- 
ness. This  doctrine,  by  implication,  swept 
away  the  sacrificial  system  as  an  absurdity. 
The  prophets,  however,  did  not  go  beyond  the 
proclamation  of  the  grand  truth ;  they  built  up 
no  organization  founded  upon  this  conception 
of  the  law  of  life.  Long  experience  and  the  co- 
operation of  many  forces  were  needed  to  ac- 
complish this  achievement.  The  doctrine  of 
righteousness  proclaimed  by  these  teachers, 
the  necessities  of  the  exiles  in  Babylonia  and, 
possibly,  some  suggestions  derived  from 
Persia,  conspired  in  unknown  degrees  to  this 
end.  When  the  Jews  returned  from  their  cap- 
tivity, one  sign  of  the  profound  change  which 
had  been  wrought  in  them  was  the  synagogue, 
the  characteristic  institution  of  Judaism,  in 
which  religion  began  to  be  organized  as  a 
spiritual  education. 

The  synagogue  was  the  incorporation  of  the 
prophetic  doctrine  as  the  basis  and  rule  of  a 
religious  community.  Here  religion  was  ad- 
ministered, not  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  propitia- 
tion of  God,  but  as  a  spiritual  service  for  the 
training  of  man  in  righteousness.  For  four 
centuries,  the  problem  of  providing  religion 
with  an  educational  method  was  being  worked 
out  by  the  synagogues,  sown  thickly  over 
Palestine,  and  spread  through  the  Mediterra- 
nean countries  by  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion. 

97 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

They  were  small  religious  communities  where 
religion  grew  spiritual  and  humane;  where 
Greek,  Egyptian  and  Eoman  influences  could 
enter  and  play  upon  the  Jewish  mind;  and 
where  the  spirit  of  man  could  expand  in  the 
line  of  intellectual  power  and  moral  aspiration : 
Not  the  propitiation  but  the  appropriation  of 
God  being  their  object. 

This,  then,  was  the  situajtion:  In  Judaism 
the  synagogue  existed  as  a  free  religious  com- 
munity in  the  germ,  where  the  moral  sentiment 
was  ready  to  burst  traditional  restrictions  and 
make  the  institution  more  spiritual  and  cosmo- 
politan ;  in  the  world  at  large  there  was  a  grow- 
ing moral  enthusiasm  and  a  readiness  to  unite 
for  humane  service.  Now,  add  to  the  syna- 
gogue the  expansive  and  crea;tive  personality 
of  Jesus,  also  PauPs  mighty  universalism  of 
spirit ;  and  out  of  it  there  will  come  the  Church 
as  a  religious  community  open  to  all,  a  religious 
method  in  the  line  of  spiritual  education,  fitted 
to  serve  and  develop  man  as  a  moral  being. 
Offer  this  institution  to  the  world,  and  it  will 
be  recognized  by  hundreds  and  thousands  as 
the  agency  long  sought, — a  form  of  religious 
organization,  expressive  of  the  spirituality  of 
man  and  serviceable  for  the  creation  of  a  new 
society. 

This  is  exactly  what  happened.  The  early 
Church  prospered  because  it  serv^ed  humanity 
better  than  any  other  existing  association.    Its 

98 


The  Independent  Congregation 

superiority  was  manifest  and  manifold.  It  was 
a  community  with  a  lofty  religious  spirit;  it 
practiced  a  religious  method  which  was  the  ex- 
pression of  educational  rather  than  sacrificial 
purposes.  It  brought  all  classes  and  both  sexes 
together  as  equal  associates,  in  closer  bonds 
and  for  nobler  purposes  than  any  other  insti- 
tution in  the  world.  It  had  what  no  other  asso- 
ciation had, — the  Gospel  and  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  the  creative  power  of  a  sublime 
personality.  Here  the  transition  of  religion 
from  the  sacrificial  to  the  spiritual  method  was 
completed.  Eeligion  now  had  a  corporate 
organization  for  pure  worship  and  ethical 
training. 

This  transition  was  radical  and  beneficent. 
It  meant  the  turning  of  the  temple,  with  its 
implications  of  God's  wrath,  its  superstitious 
terrors,  its  bloody  ceremonials,  into  a  *^  meeting 
house'*  for  a  community  service  with  devout 
meditation,  moral  instruction,  and  spiritual 
inspiration.  The  sanctuary  with  its  animal 
sacrifices  became  a  ** school  of  life,''  where  the 
heart  presents  its  reverent  love  as  acceptable 
and  adequate  worship  of  God;  where  men 
strive  to  appropriate  the  Divine  rather  than 
simply  to  propitiate  an  angry  Divinity;  where, 
also,  people  are  trained  in  loving-kindness  to 
each  other  as  more  pleasing  to  the  Infinite 
Father  than  formal  rites.  Under  this  new 
form,  religion  worked  toward  an  Ethical  Ideal 

99 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

in  a  humane  spirit.  This  meant  a  change  from 
gross  materialism  to  spiritual  humanism. 
Piety  came  to  express  itself  and  to  measure  its 
success  in  terms  of  moral  worth. 

It  is  obvious  that  there  are  many  and  radical 
differences  between  a  sacrificial  and  an  educa- 
tional administration  of  religion,  and  the 
advantages  are  all  in  favor  of  the  latter.  The 
former  puts  a  priest  beside  an  altar  to  offer  a 
propitiatory  petition  and  secure  the  favor  of 
Heaven.  The  latter  puts  a  preacher  in  a  pulpit 
to  teach  the  truth  of  God  and  to  move  the 
hearts  of  men  to  repentance.  The  former  uses 
fear  and  demands  abject  obedience.  The  latter 
calls  for  loving  reverence  and  creates  a  yearn- 
ing for  an  ever-increasing  wisdom  of  life. 
Sacrificial  religion  insists  that  people  endure 
sufferings.  Spiritual  religion  trains  them  to 
help  sufferers  and  to  destroy  the  conditions 
which  produce  suffering.  The  former  lacks  the 
social  impulse  and  seeks  to  do  little  more  than 
establish  a  friendly  relation  between  man  and 
his  creator.  The  latter  seeks  to  quicken  and 
guide,  by  its  congregational  life,  human  sym- 
pathies, in  the  conviction  that  wherever  a 
human  being  is  blessed  there  God  is  served. 

A  sacrificial  form  of  religion  uses  mystical 
rites  and  emphasizes  authority  and  tradition, 
with  reactions  toward  intolerance  and  persecu- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  religion  as  an  educa- 
tional process  endeavors  to  realize  the  possi- 

100 


The  Independent   Congregation 

bilities  of  the  soul,  fostering  freedom  and 
growth.  Eeligious  Life,  when  organized  and 
operated  as  a  Congregational  Method,  makes 
for  individual  and  corporate  efficiency.  It  in- 
terprets and  develops  worship  as  an  ethical 
and  rational  upreach  of  the  soul.  Its  abundant 
fruitage  is  found  in  gladness  of  heart,  in  social 
helpfulness,  in  purity  and  nobility  of  character. 
Democracy  and  Science,  that  discredit  sacri- 
ficial religion,  approve  and  foster  the  Keligion 
of  the  Spirit  that  finds  expression  in  the  Con- 
gregation. Wherever  in  modern  times  religion 
has  turned  from  sacrificial  forms  to  educational 
methods  and  ministries,  there  has  been  found 
an  increasing  abundance  of  the  qualities  that 
most  adorn  human  life  and  that  most  enlarge 
the  content  of  Civilization. 

The  rediscovery  of  this  church  order  at  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  recovery 
of  the  educational  administration  of  religion, 
the  re-establishment  of  the  original  Christian 
method  of  religious  nurture :  this  was  the  mod- 
em beginning  of  the  Pilgrim  Glory,  to  the  story 
of  which  we  must  now  give  our  attention. 

Many  persons  may  think  that  these  matters 
of  mere  church  polity,  or  the  forms  of  religious 
organization,  are  very  unimportant,  and  that 
they  really  have  had  no  special  influence  upon 
the  course  of  human  history.  And  yet,  events 
of  vast  moment  have  actually  flowed  from  these 
apparent  trifles,  which  some  regard  as  very 

101 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

remote  from  practical  affairs.  If  we  note  the 
radically  different  spirit  and  structure  of 
civilization,  especially  in  the  wesitern  world 
(and  among  missions  that  are  the  product  of 
these  new  conditions, — in  the  orient),  between 
the  present  time  and  the  sixteenth  century,  we 
discover  vast  changes  along  many  lines,  and 
changes  too  that  are  most  beneficent.  And 
these  results  have  flowed  largely  from  the 
matters,  which  are  here  under  considera,tion. 
The  historic  importance  of  the  Congregational 
Polity  is  greater  than  generally  supposed.  It 
has  worked  mightily  in  the  making  of  the 
modern  world,  in  the  making  and  the  meaning 
of  the  American  Citizen,  and  especially  in  the 
victory  for  civil  and  religious  freedom,  which 
we  are  now  discussing. 

Ill 

The  term,  ** Anabaptist,''  was  applied  early 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  by  their  enemies 
in  derision,  to  extreme,  sometimes  fanatical, 
Protestants  of  varying  shades  of  belief.  Their 
common  ground  was  the  rejection  of  infant 
baptism  and  the  contention  that  true  baptism 
(immersion)  is  the  symbol  and  seal  of  genuine 
conversion,  to  be  administered  only  after  the 
soul  has  accepted  Christ.  The  term  (rebap- 
tism)  they  naturally  resented;  for,  to  them, 
they    had    never    been    really    baptised, — ^the 

102 


The  Independent  Congregation 

superstitious  service  applied  to  children  was 
not  to  them  true  baptism.  They,  like  all 
Eeformers  of  the  time,  hated  Eome, — its 
priests,  rites,  and  superstitions.  Some  were 
mystics,  believing  (like  Quakers)  in  the  direct 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Some  held  posi- 
tions similar  to  modern  socialists,  only  more 
extreme,  like  Carlstadt  and  Miinzer.  Some 
advocated  offensive  views  of  marriage.  Some 
were  so  unbalanced  that  they  walked  about 
naked  in  public  places.  Some  in  Holland  even 
urged  the  use  of  the  sword  against  unbelievers. 
Some  went  so  far  as  to  set  up  ^^the  wild  and 
wicked  parody  of  the  Kingdom  of  God'*  at 
Miinster  in  1535.  The  few  fanatics,  incident 
to  a  time  of  general  disorder,  brought  disgrace 
upon  large  companies  of  so-called  Anabap- 
tists, who  were,  in  the  main,  reasonable  and 
law-abiding  people. 

As  a  rule.  Anabaptists  belonged  to  the  middle 
classes  (some  early  leaders  like  Denk,  Grebel, 
Manz,  Hubmaier,  were  learned  men), — ^*the 
plain  people, '*  with  a  simple,  austere,  undog- 
matic  piety.  They  emphasized  personal  expe- 
rience in  religion :  much  insisted  upon  today  by 
Baptists  and  Methodists.  In  all  times  of  stress 
and  excitement  such  views  often  lead  to  many 
excesses.  But  recent  researches  have  shown 
that  they  were  more  numerous  and  more 
worthy  than  it  was  formerly  supposed.  They 
existed  in  almost  every  country,  and  some  of 

103 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

their  opinions  respecting  Scripture,  the 
Church,  and  life  in  general,  were  then  far  in 
advance  of  their  age,  but  they  have  since  been 
generally  accepted.  They  represented  a  move- 
ment of  religious  feeling:  not  an  intellectual 
,  discovery  or  an  organizing  impulse.  They 
cared  very  little  for  institutions,  civil  or  relig- 
ious. They  disliked  all  the  trappings  of 
royalty,  and  ceremonial  piety  was  to  them  an 
offence.  They  had  slight  respect  for  magis- 
trates and  bitter  contempt  for  priests.  They 
were  too  individualistic  to  organize  a  perma- 
nent religious  movement;  or  to  found  schools 
— of  whose  learning  they  made  little  use.  They 
made  no  efforts  to  create  institutions  of  any 
kind.  They  strove  to  extend  their  beliefs  by 
personal  missionary  efforts;  sometimes  in 
loosely  grouped  companies  and  sometimes 
in  friendly  relation  with  various  existing 
churches. 

The  Anabaptists,  at  the  very  beginning  of 
their  activities,  opposed  persecution  for  mere 
opinion  and  they  practiced  toleration:  they 
furnished  many  early  martyrs  to  the  cause  of 
^^soul  liberty.''  At  Schleithein,  Switzerland 
(the  Swiss  Anabaptists  were  the  sanest  and 
ablest  of  all  these  extreme  radicals),  an  Ana- 
baptist Confession  (the  earliest  known)  was 
adopted  Feb.  24,  1527,  and  it  contains  this 
sta^tement:  ^^In  law  the  sword  is  ordained  over 
the  wicked  for  punishment  and  death,  and  the 

104 


The  Independent   Congregation 

civil  power  is  ordained  to  use  it.  But  in  the 
perfection  of  Christ,  excommunication  is  pro- 
nounced only  for  naming  and  for  exclusion  of 
him  who  has  sinned '^  (Sixth  Article). 

The  claims  often  made  in  behalf  of  this 
action  are  far  greater  than  the  words  really 
warrant.  There  is  here  no  clear  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  religious  freedom  nor  is  the 
modern  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State  specifically  described.  The  situa- 
tion was  simply  this :  These  groups  of  earnest 
but  lowly  disciples  of  Jesus,  separating  them- 
selves from  the  world,  wished  the  State  to  let 
them  alone.  They  asked  no  exercise  of  civil 
power  to  help  propagate  their  views,  and  they 
wished  to  be  tolerant  toward  other  Christian 
bodies.  Certainly  a  very  praiseworthy  stand 
to  take. 

What  was  best  and  sanest  in  the  Anabaptists 
survived  in  the  Baptists,  the  least  sacramental 
and  most  scriptural  of  the  great  Protestant 
Denominations, — and  often  the  most  misun- 
derstood! They,  however,  did  not  come  into 
definite  shape  or  marked  influence  in  England 
until  the  early  years  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  From  the  first  these  Baptist  churches 
in  England, — and  their  sisters  in  America, — 
have  stood  steadfastly  for  ^^soul  liberty,'*  for 
personal  religious  experience,  for  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  local  congregation,  and  for  the 
complete  separation  of  Church  and  State  (and 

J05 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

all  that  this  implies) :  their  record  in  these 
respects  is  notable  and  deserves  abundant 
honor.  They  were  broader  than  even  Milton, 
who  denied  toleration  to  Catholics;  and  no 
Baptist  has  ever  advocated  the  punishment  of 
any  one  for  heresy.  But  the  claim  of  Masson 
(Milton,  III.  98)  that  the  booklet,  '* Religious 
Peace  or  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience'' 
(1614),  which  came  out  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
established  in  London  (about  1612)  by 
Thomas  Helwys  and  John  Murton,  from  the 
hand  of  Leonard  Busher  (^*It  cannot  be  read 
now  without  a  throb"),  was  the  first  English 
document  to  assert  ^Hhe  absolute  principle  of 
liberty  of  conscience,'' — ^this  claim  is  not  war- 
ranted by  facts,  as  the  following  pages  will 
show. 


IV 

It  was  left  for  a  comparatively  obscure 
Englishman  to  see  the  great  truth  that  others 
had  missed:  a  person  without  genius,  destitute 
of  the  gracious  temper  and  the  heroic  spirit, 
with  weaknesses  that  blighted  his  fame,  whose 
enemies  viciously  smirched  his  name  and  whose 
real  followers  refused  to  accept  him  as  their 
leader.  And  yet,  these  words  of  praise  by 
Dr.  Dexter  are  amply  deserved:  Robert 
Browne  is  entitled  to  **the  proud  pre-eminence 
of  having  been  the  first  writer  clearly  to  state 

106 


The  Independent  Congregation 

and  defend  in  the  English  tongue  the  true — 
and  now  accepted — relation  of  the  magistrate 
to  the  Church. '^     (Congregationalism,  p.  101.) 

The  facts  of  Browne's  life  may  be  briefly- 
stated.  The  recent  discoveries  of  Burrage, 
Crippen,  and  Cater,  made  within  the  past 
fifteen  years,  have  greatly  added  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  man  and  his  writings:  they  have 
set  many  circumstances  in  a  new  and  more 
favorable  light;  they  have  made  plain  what 
was  long  obscure,  but  uncertainty  still  exists 
respecting  many  matters.  Until  recently  only 
one  page  of  manuscript,  written  by  him,  was 
known  to  exist,  now  there  are  over  eighty 
pages;  and  some  twenty-five  writings,  a 
majority  brief,  from  his  hand  are  known  to 
scholars;  and  of  them  Burrage  truly  states: 
**They  should  forever  preserve  the  memory  of 
his  name''  (True  Story,  73). 

Robert  Browne  (cl550-cl633)  was  born  of 
good  family  in  Rutlandshire,  England:  the 
prominent  statesman  and  favorite  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  Lord  Burghley  was  a  relative 
(probably  his  father's  cousin)  and  frequently 
rescued  him  from  serious  difficulties.  He  took 
his  bachelor's  degree  at  Corpus  Christi,  Cam- 
bridge, in  1572.  After  teaching  five  years,  he 
returned  to  Cambridge  (the  Benet  church)  to 
preach,  and  he  showed  his  independence  by 
refusing  to  accept  a  salary  and  by  showing 
indifference  to  the  bishop's  license  to  preach, 

107 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

which  friends  secured  for  him,  June  6,  1579. 
He  turned  more  and  more  to  unconventional 
methods,  preaching  in  houses  and  fields.  He 
began  to  differ  radically  with  Puritan  and 
Presbyterian,  who  looked  to  the  magistrate  to 
use  force  or  civil  law  to  reform  religion. 

Browne  then  left  Cambridge  and  spent  some 
months  going  up  and  do^vn  the  west  coast  of 
England,  where  the  influence  of  Wiclif  lingered 
and  where  Dutch  and  Anabaptist  ideas  were 
common.  He  worked  largely  in  secret,  but  he 
made  an  immense  impression  by  his  vigor, 
directness,  and  zeal,  so  that  the  countryside, 
under  his  touch,  burst  into  flame.  As  such 
actions  as  his  were  unlawful,  the  church 
officials  demanded  his  arrest,  and  then  began 
the  long  series  of  imprisonments,  in  jails,  in 
some  of  which  at  noonday,  he  could  not  see  his 
hand  before  his  face, — over  thirty  in  a  period 
of  less  than  ten  years :  probably  the  most  fre- 
quently jailed  man  of  his  time.  He  was  fortu- 
nate, however,  in  being  again  and  again 
released  through  the  intercession  of  Lord 
Burghley. 

In  the  spring  of  1580,  he  organized  at 
Norwich  a  little  covenant-church,  according  to 
the  plan  which  he  discovered  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment: *^The  first  church  in  modern  days  .  .  . 
which  was  intelligently,  and,  as  one  might  say, 
philosophically.  Congregational  in  its  platform 
and  processes''    (Dexter,    Congregationalism, 

103 


The  Independent  Congregation 

70).  But  life  for  him  and  Ms  people  was 
neither  easy  nor  safe  at  Norwich.  With  a  few 
friends,  he — (a  ** pilgrim"  before  the  Pilgrims) 
— went  January,  1582,  secretly,  to  Middelburg, 
Zeeland.  But  Browne  was  not  happy  with  his 
own  people  or  with  the  other  English  Prot- 
estants living  in  exile  there.  A  somewhat 
angular  and  bitter  spirit,  he  lacked  the  genius 
of  leadership  and  could  not  long  be  friendly 
with  any  one. 

But  this  much  he  did  on  that  Dutch  soil:  He 
put  his  theories  into  print  in  three  pamphlets : 
now  rare,  crudely  printed,  spelling  varied  and 
archaic,  but  embodying  a  flaming  and  powerful 
message.  These  writings  (1582)  bear  the  fol- 
lowing titles — in  brief : 

A  Booke  which  Sheweth  the  life  and 
manners  of  all  true  Christians. 

A   Treatise    of   Reformation   without 
tarying  for  anie. 

A  Treatise  upon  the  23d  of  Matthew. 

These  and  two  others  comprise  the  important 
writings  of  Robert  Browne:  **A  True  and 
Short  Declaration''  (24  pp.  probably  1584), — 
chiefly  biographical,  which  was  discovered 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Henry  M.  Dexter,  some  forty 
years  ago;  and:  *'A  Reproof e  of  Certaine 
Schismatical  Persons '*  (65  pp.  probably  1588), 
— a  plea  for  the  lawfulness  of  attending  the 

109 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Established  Churches :  written  after  his  sub- 
mission to  the  Episcopal  Church.  This  was 
found  by  Champlin  Burr  age  in  the  library  at 
Lambert  Palace  in  1905. 

Browne,  leaving  Middelburg  soon  after 
printing  his  booklets,  spent  a  short  and  uncom- 
for[table  time  in  Scotland,  and  soon  returned 
to  England.  There,  on  Oct.  7,  1585,  he  sub- 
scribed to  five  articles  of  submission  before 
Archbishop  Whitgift  of  Canterbury.  These 
were  promises  henceforth  to  accept  the  English 
Church  as  a  true  church,  to  obey  its  bishops, 
to  partake  of  its  sacraments,  and  to  be  quiet! 
And  for  the  rest  of  his  days,  some  forty-eight 
years,  he  was,  nominally,  an  Anglican.  He 
taught  in  an  Episcopal  school  for  a  few  years ; 
he  was  ordained  in  1591,  and  served  as  rector 
at  Achurch  (not  an  obscure  position)  from  that 
date  until  his  death  in  1633. 

John  Fiske,  having  these  and  other  facts  in 
mind,  refers  to  *Hhe  flimsiness  of  Browne's 
moral  texture''  (Beginnings  of  New  England, 
68).  But  Mr.  Fiske  would  not  have  written 
this  statement  if  he  had  been  in  possession  of 
the  facts  which  have  come  to  light  in  the  last 
ten  years.  The  charges  against  Browne,  that 
he  was  intemperate,  a  wife-beater,  a  sabbath- 
breaker,  quarrelsome,  a  man  who  refused  to 
pay  his  debts, — these  rest  probably  upon  noth- 
ing more  than  the  vicious  gossip  of  enemies. 

Browne's  submission  to  the  Archbishop  was 
110 


The  Independent  Congregation 

undoubtedly  due  to  these  influences :  Chiefly  to 
consideration  for  the  welfare  of  his  growing 
family.  Next,  to  the  advice  of  Lord  Burghley 
who  had  befriended  him  and  who  wrote  Feb. 
17,  1585,  to  Browne's  father:  *^I  wish  he  might 
better  be  persuaded  to  conform  himself,  for  his 
own  good,  and  yours,  and  his  friends'  comfort" 
(Fuller,  Ch.  Hist.  Brit.  III.  64).  And  no  doubt 
another  reason  was  the  apparent  hopelessness 
of  his  movement  and  the  desire  for  a  less 
turbulent  existence.  Moreover,  it  is  evident 
that  these  promises  that  he  made  to  the  Arch- 
bishop (which  did  not  actually  imply  a  definite 
recantation  of  his  former  teachings),  were 
given  mth  both  open  and  mental  reservations ; 
or  as  Burrage  puts  it:  **Did  not  mean  much" 
(True  Story,  39). 

However,  Browne  did  formally  conform  to 
the  Established  Church  and  accept  a  pastorate 
at  Achurch.  This  seemed  to  his  old  friends 
weak  and  dishonorable  conduct.  No  wonder 
that  those  who  later  adopted  his  views  of 
church  organization  refused,  with  a  good  deal 
of  heat,  to  be  called  ^^Bro^vnists."  Surely  his 
action  was  not  heroic;  not  what  could  be  ex- 
pected of  one  who  had  been  courageous  enough 
to  go  on  with  his  work  though  put  into  more 
than  thirty  prisons.  His  case  presents  so  vex- 
a^tious  a  problem  that  Dr.  Dexter  tried  to  ex- 
plain it  by  supposing  that  he  was  more  or  less 
insane  during  the  last  forty  years  of  his  life. 

Ill 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liiherty 

But  recent  researches  show  that  this  theory- 
is  unnecessary:  the  baseless  scandals  set  afloat 
about  him  do  not  need  any  such  explanation, 
and  well-known  facts  make  the  theory  of 
insanity  very  improbable.  English  bishops 
would  not  have  entrusted  a  madman  with  a 
church,  nor  could  a  lunatic  have  written  so 
gracious  and  coherent  a  treatise  as  his 
^^Eeproofe  of  Certaine  Schismatical  Persons.'' 

The  true  situation  seems  to  have  been  this: 
Robert  Bro^vne,  weary  and  discouraged  on 
account  of  his  many  failures  and  persecutions, 
did  what  many  otherwise  good  people  continue 
to  do :  He  nominally  conformed,  while  in  secret 
holding  radically  different  opinions.  This 
Bredwell  asserted  in  1588:  ^'Cunningly 
counterfeiteth  conf ormitie ' '  (Foundations  of 
Bro^vnisme).  And  Thomas  Fuller  (1608-1661) 
— who  states  that  when  a  young  man  he  often 
saw  Browne, — ^made  this  assertion:  ^^I  will 
never  believe  that  he  ever  formally  recanted  his 
opinions''  (Ch.  Hist.  Brit.  III.  65). 

The  following  facts  confirm  this  general 
judgment:  (1)  In  1586,  he  was  arrested  and 
charged  (while  serving  as  a  teacher)  with  non- 
attendance  at  church.  (2)  During  all  his  years 
at  Achurch,  he  apparently  did  little  or  no 
preaching  in  the  parish  church,  but  employed 
a  curate  to  occupy  the  pulpit.  (3)  He  was  ex- 
communicated by  the  Bishop  of  Peterborough 
in  1616  and  seems  to  have  been  under  ban  for 

112 


The  Independent  Congregation 

about  ten  years.  (4)  Rumors  were  long  cur- 
rent in  the  region  where  he  lived  that  he 
secretly  preached  his  original  and  peculiar 
views  to  a  private  church,  meeting  in  an 
obscure  room  at  Achurch;  which  may  account 
for  his  being  disciplined  by  the  bishop.  (5) 
His  so-called  **  Retractions, '  *  in  A  Reproofs 
(directed  against  Barrow  and  others),  contain 
no  explicit  denials  of  the  main  elements  of  his 
early  doctrine.  He  simply  pleads  for  a  friendly 
attitude  toward  Anglican  ministers  whom  he 
had  formerly  bitterly  condemned  as  false 
teachers  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  whom,  as  he 
early  held,  it  was  a  sin  to  hear  preach :  the  view 
held  by  Barrow.  The  spirit  of  this  work  is, 
indeed,  much  broader  and  more  tolerant  than 
the  pages  of  his  early  pamphlets.  But  this 
change  of  temper  respecting  one  matter  does 
not  prove  a  renunciation  of  his  general  theory 
of  church  order.  In  fact,  his  failure  in  this 
connection,  decisively  to  repudiate  his  early 
views,  is  good  evidence  that  such  had  not  been 
the  case. 


What  was  it  that  this  Father  of  Congrega- 
tionalism discovered?  What  contribution  did 
he  make  to  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty?  What  did  he  do  that  helped  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  Martyrdom  of  Man?  What  is  his 
relation  to  the  Pilgrim  Glory? 

113 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

The  uppermost  desire  of  Browne  was  to  find 
an  immediate  and  effective  method  of  reforma- 
tion. He  saw  clearly  the  failures  and  mistakes 
of  the  grea^t  Protestants.  The  reformed 
churches  fell  far  short  of  the  New  Testament 
ideal.  They  were  full  of  worldliness,  supersti- 
tion, ungodliness.  Intolerance  existed  every- 
where and  persecutions  were  frequent.  What 
could  be  done,  what  must  be  done  to  re-establish 
pure  Christianity? 

To  him  several  things  were  evident:  (1) 
Worldly  people  must  be  kept  out  of  the 
churches.  As  it  was,  there  were  more  sinners 
than  saints  in  the  churches.  (2)  The  churches 
must  be  freed  from  the  domination  of  the  mag- 
istrate. As  long  as  he  held  authority  over 
them,  believers  in  Christ  were  under  the  con- 
trol of  an  alien  and  worldly  power.  (3)  Each 
church,  to  make  reformation  vital  and  rapid, 
must  be  left  free,  not  only  from  civil  but  from 
ecclesiastical  authority,  in  order  that  it  may 
live  and  grow  under  the  direction  of  Christ 
alone.  Believers  must  obey,  in  religion,  only 
the  authority  of  Jesus.  In  the  things  of  the 
spirit,  there  must  be  no  divided  allegiance: 
the  State  must  rule  in  things  of  the  world,  but 
Christ  in  matters  of  the  souPs  salvation.  This 
seemed  to  Browne  a  very  vital,  as  it  is  indeed, 
a  very  practical  matter.  If  the  Moral  Ideal 
of  Christ  is  to  recreate  mankind,  the  Church 
which  ministers  to  this  end  must,  in  its  mem- 

114 


The  Independent  Congregation 

bership,  represent  Ms  spirit  and  not  a  low 
worldly  ambition.  Worldly  followers  of  Jesus, 
cannot  lift  the  world  to  the  heights  of  Christian 
excellence:  they  cannot  give  what  they  do  not 
possess. 

These  truths  being  accepted  as  fundamental, 
what  must  be  done?  The  answer  he  found, 
clear  as  the  day,  in  the  pages  of  the  New 
Testament,  although  it  had  not  been  seen  by 
the  great  Eeformers.  The  evangelical  method 
or  principle  is  this :  In  the  Church,  the  priest- 
hood of  all  believers  and  the  sole  Lordship  of 
Christ.  Grant  this  basic  proposition  and  note 
what  necessarily  follows:  (1)  The  true  church 
is  ,the  local  congregation  of  covenanted  disci- 
ples of  Jesus,  who  separate  themselves  from 
the  world, — its  vices,  follies,  and  superstitions. 
It  is  a  spiritual  organization  for  spiritual  ends. 
It  is  held  together,  not  by  civil  coercion  or 
ecclesiastical  bonds,  not  by  dogma  or  rite,  but 
by  a  covenant  with  the  Lord.  **The  church  is 
a  companie  or  number  of  believers  which  by  a 
willing  covenant  made  with  their  God  are  under 
government  of  God  and  Chrisf  (Booke  which 
Sheweth.  3). 

(2)  Necessarily,  such  a  church  must  be 
separated  from  the  State.  The  magis-trate 
must  have  no  authority  in  it  or  over  it.  If  he 
did,  he  would  interfere  with  the  Lordship  of 
Jesus  which  in  spiritual  matters  is  supreme. 
Church  and  State  must  therefore  stand  apart, 

115 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

each  attending  to  the  peculiar  duties  to  which 
it  is  called. 

(3)  Each  local  church  is  a  complete  church, 
independent  in  and  of  itself;  accountable  alone 
to  Christ,  its  sole  Master;  all  members  equal, 
because  all  spiritual  heirs  or  priests  of  the 
Most  High.  As  such,  it  is  separated  from  all 
other  churches :  they  must  not  coerce  it,  and  it 
must  not  dictate  to  them.  This  puts  a  stop  to 
ecclesiastical  domination;  and  this  double  sep- 
aration from  State  and  Hierarchy  puts  an  end 
to  persecution  while  it  provides  liberty  for 
growth  in  the  spirit.  And  all  members  within 
the  local  church  being  equal,  all  have  the  same 
privileges  of  voting  and  holding  office,  making 
a  Hierarchy  or  clerical  orders  within  the  single 
church  impossible. 

This  was  the  Church  Order  which  Browne 
found  described  in  the  New  Testament  and  con- 
firmed by  the  practices  of  the  primitive 
churches.  The  bearing  of  all  this  upon  the 
problem  of  the  reformation  of  religion  is 
obvious:  (1)  The  parish  churches  of  England 
embraced  the  whole  community :  good,  bad,  and 
indifferent.  Such  a  heterogeneous  company 
could  not  easily  be  moved  and  the  general  level 
of  its  spiritual  life  would  necessarily  be  low. 
But  a  body  of  covenanted  disciples  of  Jesus,  a 
selecft  company,  separated  from  the  world, 
provided  a  high  type  of  religious  life  with 
which  to  begin. 

116 


The  Independent  Congregation 

(2)  In  this  way,  the  reformation  of  religion 
could  start  at  once  and  proceed  without 
hindrances  from  magistrate  or  bishop.  The 
parish  churches,  being  tied  together  and  in 
servitude  to  the  State,  could  not  easily  move 
forward.  The  single  church  must  wait  for  all 
the  others,  and  when  they  were  ready,  the 
approval  of  the  State  must  then  be  obtained. 
Practically,  the  way  of  progress  was  made  so 
difficult  that  none  whatever  was  made.  But 
under  the  New  Testament  plan,  Browne's 
*' Independent  Congregation,''  the  way  for- 
ward was  always  open:  no  bishop  to  restrain^ 
no  magistrate  to  coerce,  no  entangling  alliancea 
with  other  churches  to  be  overcome.  Gro^vtli 
became  easy  and  continuous,  in  response  to  the 
spirit  of  Christ.  Two  advantages  of  incal- 
culable value:  A  ** Congregation"  on  a  high 
spiritual  level  at  the  start, — perfect  freedom 
of  movement  without  any  external  restrictions. 

These  are  the  revolutionary  principles  which 
Browne  clearly  set  forth  in  his  little  booklet, 
*^A  Treatise  of  Reformation  without  tarying 
for  anie."  In  its  pages,  he  is  very  bitter 
against  the  worldliness  of  the  parish  churches, 
as  he  well  might  be ;  and  he  was  also  very  bitter 
against  the  Puritan  clergy  who  wished  to 
purify  the  churches,  but  by  the  strong  arm  of 
the  magistrate.  To  these  Browne  appealed: 
Why  wait  for  the  magistrate?  That  is  begin- 
ning at  the  wrong  end!    That  is  trying  to  pro- 

117 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

duce  spiritual  results  by  use  of  carnal  means! 
Why  not  start  at  once  by  organizing  an 
** Independent  Congregation,'*  filled  with  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  and  responsible  alone  to 
him  and  free  to  move  as  he  directs? 

Some  of  these  points  were  more  fully  ex- 
pounded by  him  in  the  two  other  booklets: 
''The  Booke  which  Sheweth,"  and  the  Exposi- 
tion of  the  Twenty-third  Chapter  of  Matthew. 
Browne  in  these  writings  stril^es  at  the  root  of 
all  National  Establishments  of  religion,  then 
approved  by  all  the  Eeformers,  Lutheran  and 
Calvinistic,  Anglican  and  Puritan.  In  these 
teachings,  he  opens  the  way  for  effective 
reformation  through  the  Independent  Congre- 
gation; he  gives  to  rehgion  an  educational 
expression  in  terms  of  heart  life;  he  frees  the 
*'body  of  Chrisf  from  unworthy  elements;  he 
provides  for  religious  freedom  by  driving 
magistrates  away  from  religious  affairs  and 
keeping  ministers  from  participation  in  poli- 
tics ;  and  he  puts  an  end  to  the  Martyrdom  of 
Man  by  the  separation  of  Church  and  State: 
carnal  weapons  must  not  be  used  to  coerce  the 
soul,  which,  in  matters  of  the  spiritual  life,  is 
Bolely  under  the  Lordship  of  Christ. 

Some  recent  writers  have  contended  that  the 
newest  inves^tigations  show  that  Browne  did 
not  believe,  before  his  conformity,  in  religious 
freedom  or  the  separation  of  Church  and  State. 
In  this  they  are  mistaken.    They  have  miscon- 

118 


The  Independent  Congregation 

strued  what  he  wrote  respecting  the  magistrate 
and  his  relation  to  the  Church.  He  admitted 
that  a  certain  connection  did  exist,  but  the 
purpose  of  such  connection  was  simply  a 
friendly  protection,  as  in  the  United  States. 
The  sole  lordship  of  Jesus  over  the  local  con- 
gregation, which  he  so  forcibly  asserted,  neces- 
sarily implies  that  the  magistrate  cease  to 
supervise  belief.  How  could  members  be  solely 
responsible  to  Christ,  if  the  magistrate  has  the 
right  to  dictate  what  they  shall  believe!  The 
very  keystone  of  his  doctrine  is  the  independ- 
ence of  the  local  covenanted  Church  under 
Christ  alone.  But  this  would  be  destroyed  if 
the  authority  of  the  magistrate  were  admitted 
respecting  belief  and  polity. 

The  followers  of  Browne  (even  those, — 
and  they  were  many, — ^who  refused  to  be 
called  Brownists)  were  naturally  known  as 
Separatists.  Their  doctrine  of  Separation 
emphasized  three  things:  (1)  A  company  of 
devout  disciples  separated  from  the  worldli- 
ness  of  the  world  and  covenanted  to  walk  in 
the  ways  of  God  under  the  sole  leadership  of 
Christ,  securing  in  this  way  at  once  a  radical 
reformation  of  religion.  To  this  point  Browne 
gave  chief  attention,  as  did  John  Eobinson 
thirty  years  later:  **The  Justification  of 
Separation^'  (1610). 

(2)  An  independent  congregation  com- 
pletely separated  from  priest  and  bishop:  no 

119 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

part  of  an  Established  Church,  but  free  to 
grow  as  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  directed.  While 
the  Anglicans  believed  in  the  divine  right  of 
Bishops  and  the  Presbyterians  in  the  divine 
right  of  Presbyters,  the  Independents  (as 
these  Separatists  came  to  be  called)  believed 
in  the  divine  right  of  the  Congregation. 

(3)  As  a  necessary  consequence  of  these  two 
propositions, — the  separation  of  these  local 
churches  from  the  State  and  its  Established 
Church, — the  magistrate  would  have  no  control 
over  their  faith  or  practice.  Therefore,  the 
secular  arm,  being  excluded  from  matters  of 
religion,  the  civil  punishment  of  heresy  would 
cease.  At  first,  this  point  was  less  discussed, 
but  it  was  a  vital  part  of  the  doctrine,  and  it 
was  later  seen  to  have  supreme  importance. 

This,  then,  was  a  threefold  separation:  a 
doctrine  of  mighty  power,  which,  when  fully 
developed,  radically  reformed  the  organization 
of  the  Church,  reinterpreted  the  ministry  of 
religion;  retired  the  magistrates  from  spiritual 
functions;  and  readjusted  the  relations  of 
Church  and  State  with  infinite  gain  to  both. 
The  failure  of  many  writers  to  understand  how 
broad  a  doctrine  *  ^  Separation ' '  really  was, — 
their  failure  to  see  its  threefold  character, — 
has  led  to  much  confusion  and  many  errors. 
Early  Separatists  varied  in  their  views  re- 
speoting  these  elements  and  in  the  emphasis 
which  they  put  upon  them.    Some  stressed  one 

120 


The  Independent  Congregation 

element  and  some  another,  few  all  three 
equally.  Hence  it  has  been  easy  for  recent 
authors  to  deny  that  certain  leaders  were 
Separatists,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they 
were  simply  limited  in  their  views  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Separation.  It  is  necessary  to  keep 
in  mind  the  breadth  of  this  great  doctrine. 

This  was  Robert  Bro^Tie's  ^^  great  discov- 
ery.'' He  found  it  in  the  New  Testament.  His 
greatness  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  had  eyes  to 
see  it  and  appreciate  its  importance  and  in- 
tellectual ability  to  formulate  it  with  power 
and  apply  it  with  practical  insight.  It  has 
often  been  asserted  that  he  borrowed  the  doc- 
trine from  the  Anabaptists.  But  the  fact  is 
that  he  had  made  this  discovery  before  he  left 
Cambridge  and  came  into  contact  with  the 
Anabaptists  in  and  about  Norwich.  He  neither 
referred  to  these  people  nor  quoted  from  their 
writings.  While  there  are  some  superficial 
similarities  between  his  views  and  theirs,  the 
differences  are  many  and  radical. 

Three  mistakes  about  Brownism  have  been 
current:  (1)  Figgis  asserts  that  Browne  held 
that  the  State  should  be  indifferent  to  religion 
and  the  Church  (Cam.  Mod.  Hist. — ^Wars  of 
Religion,  756).  What  he  really  advocated  was 
that  the  State  should  cease  to  coerce  the 
Church, — quite  another  matter.  (2)  Some 
have  represented,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
Browne  did  not  really  believe  in  the  separa- 

121 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

tion  of  Church  and  State,  but  called  upon  the 
magistrates  to  help  religion.  A  more  careful 
reading  of  his  language  shows,  as  has  been 
pointed  out,  that  what  he  had  in  mind  was  not 
coercion  of  the  Church  or  interference  with 
conscience  by  the  State,  but  such  civil  laws  and 
policies  as  would  protect  the  churches  and 
foster  piety,  as  is  the  case  in  our  Nation  where 
the  separation  is  complete.  (3)  Browne  did 
not  teach  that  the  local  church  should  be 
solitary  and  unfriendly  to  other  churches.  He 
believed  in  a  fraternity  but  not  in  a  hierarchy 
of  churches.  Congregational  Polity  turns  on 
two  hinges:  The  Independence  of  the  local 
church;  the  cooperation  of  all  true  churches  in 
fostering  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

The  important  fact  to  bear  in  mind  is  this: 
that  Browne,  by  the  help  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, did  formulate  and  present  to  Protestant- 
ism a  new  method  of  religious  life  and  church 
order  of  very  great  importance.  Many  of  its 
uses  and  implications  he  did  not  himself  real- 
ize :  no  more  than  Franklin  the  uses  and  appli- 
cations of  his  great  electrical  discovery. 
Browne's  discovery  did,  however,  become  a 
historic  force  which  has  changed  the  policies 
of  western  civilization  and  the  method  of 
Christianity.  This  **  spiritual  tooP'  did  not  at 
once  make  men  tolerant.  Browne  himself  was 
intolerant,  as  also  many  early  Separatists. 
But  the  inevitable  influence  of  the  Independent 

122 


The  Independent  Congregation 

Congregation,  as  the  history  of  over  three 
centuries  shows,  has  not  only  fostered 
toleration  and  freedom,  but  also  stopped 
persecutions. 

Congregational  Polity  cannot  by  itself, 
simply  by  separating  Church  and  State,  force 
Christians  to  love  one  another  or  compel 
churches  to  honor  one  another.  But,  by  remov- 
ing irritating  bonds  and  tyrannical  assump- 
tions, by  suppressing  the  lust  for  authority 
and  the  passion  for  persecution,  by  promoting 
freedom  of  thought  and  conscience,  this  form 
of  religious  life  does  give  love  and  sympathy 
not  only  a  chance  to  grow  but  also  the  impulse 
to  grow.  It  fosters  appreciation;  puts  faith 
under  the  discipline  of  kindness;  and,  in  the 
end,  it  establishes  a  wide  catholicity  and  a  gen- 
uine friendliness  in  matters  of  the  Spirit. 


VI 

It  has  been  common  to  ignore  the  importance 
of  Browne,  one  party  calling  him  a  fierce 
fanatic  in  his  early  life,  and  the  other  con- 
demning him  as  an  unworthy  turncoat  during 
his  later  years.  But  however  lacking  in  certain 
qualities  and  however  unheroic  in  his  con- 
formity, he  did  give  his  name  to  a  form  of 
religious  life  and  a  method  of  church  organiza- 
tion, which,  as  ^^Congregational  Polity,''  have 
had  great  historic  influence  and  importance. 

123 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Those  holding  these  views  were  long  known  as 
Brownists.  As  a  party  they  resented  the  name, 
as  has  been  stated,  but  it  really  belonged  to 
them.  That  it  was  widely  used  as  a  term  of 
reproach  (indicating  the  existence  of  many 
such  people)  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
Shakespere  (Twelfth  Night,  Act  III.,  Scene  II. ; 
about  1600)  represented  Sir  Andrew  Ague- 
Cheek  as  saying:  ^^I  had  as  lief  be  a  Brownist 
as  a  politician.'' 

BroAVtie  had  become  so  prominent  and  his 
writings  so  well  known,  during  the  last  years 
of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  that  she  issued  a 
Proclamation  specifically  aimed  at  him  (he 
being  mentioned  by  name),  his  followers,  and 
his  books  (June  30,  1583) :  This  statute  made 
Brownism  punishable  as  sedition:  it  being  a 
denial  of  the  Supremacy  of  the  Queen  in  mat- 
ters of  religion.  And  no  wonder  that  the 
authorities  were  aroused;  for  a  little  before 
this  (August  2,  1581),  Dr.  Freake,  Bishop  of 
Norwich,  wrote  that  Browne  ^'hath  greatly 
troubled  the  whole  country  and  brought  many 
to  great  disobedience  of  all  laws  and  magis- 
trates'' (Hanbury,  Memorials  I.  19).  Soon 
after,  in  1583,  two  men  were  executed  at  Bury 
St.  Edmunds  for  circulating  his  books:  Elias 
Thacker  (June  4)  and  John  Copping  (June  6). 
The  cause  that  he  represented  was  sufficiently 
noteworthy  to  have  its  martyrs  and  engage  the 
attention  of  Queen  and  Cabinet, 

124 


The  Independent  Congregation 

Ten  years  later,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  speak- 
ing in  Parliament  (April  4,  1593),  asserted 
that  his  followers  probably  numbered  twenty 
thousand  (undoubtedly  an  exaggeration),  and 
he  used  these  words:  ^^In  my  conceit,  the 
Brownists  are  worthy  to  be  rooted  out  of  the 
Commonwealth.^^  The  movement,  however, 
could  not  be  stamped  out,  although  at  this 
date  Browne  had  made  his  peace  with  the 
Bishops.  It  was  about  this  time,  that  an 
opponent,  Bredwell,  gave  this  praise  to  him: 
^^ There  is  none  among  them  [Separatists] 
that  can  justly  take  the  garland  from  Eobert 
Browne''  (Foundations  of  Bro^vnisme,  1588). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  very  slanders  circulated 
about  him  at  that  period,  and  the  fears  of  the 
authorities  concerning  the  rapid  spread  of  his 
doctrine,  show  his  influence. 

No  more  significant  testimony  to  the  impor- 
tance of  Browne  can  be  found  than  the  follow- 
ing statement  by  Lord  Bacon  (1592) :  **As  for 
those  which  we  call  Brownists,  being,  when  at 
their  best,  a  very  small  number  of  very  silly 
and  base  people,  here  and  there  in  corners 
dispersed,  they  are  now,  thanks  to  God,  by  the 
good  remedies  that  have  been  used,  suppressed 
and  worn  out,  so  that  there  is  scarce  any  news 
of  them''  (Certain  Observations:  Works,  III. 
60:  London  Ed.  1824).  But  how  little  Bacon 
knew  of  the  matter  of  which  he  was  writing! 
They  were  not,  even  then,  so  few  or  so  obscure 

125 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

as  he  imagined.  Among  the  Brownists  then  and 
for  more  than  a  century  to  come,  were  many 
college  men:  men  of  worth  and  prominence. 
A  poor  prophet  indeed!  Suppressed  and  soon 
to  disappear!  They  were  so  important  a  few 
years  later  that  Bishop  Joseph  Hall  gave  them 
much  attention  in  his  book:  A  Common 
Apologie  of  the  Church  of  England:  Against 
the  Unjust  Challenges  of  the  Overjust  Sect, 
commonly  called  Brownists  (1610).  And  even 
then  the  Pilgrim  Band  (really  Brownists 
though  disowning  the  name)  had  appeared  and 
in  time  they  shaped  the  destiny  of  America; 
and  not  many  years  to  the  Commonwealth 
whose  great  leaders,  Cromwell,  Milton  and 
Vane  advocated  the  Independency  which  he 
taught.  This  much  overpraised  man  (Bacon 
made  no  scientific  discoveries,  and  he  found 
**many  and  grave  difficulties'*  in  the  Coperni- 
can  system!),  though  so  far-famed,  never 
really  contributed  so  much  to  the  betterment 
of  human  life  as  the  obscure  Robert  Browne, 
who  started  a  movement  which,  gathering 
elements  from  many  directions,  resulted  in  the 
reorganization  of  religion,  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  and  so,  in  the  end,  secured 
freedom  for  learning  and  science,  for  politics 
and  faith. 

Lord  Bacon  expected  that  the  Brownists 
would  disappear  long  before  his  death.  But 
what  was  the  situation  within  a  score  of  years 

126 


The  Independent  Congregation 

after  he  died  in  disgrace?  An  Independent, 
Cromwell,  was  ruler  of  England:  an  Inde- 
pendent, Milton,  was  the  greatest  poet  then 
living  in  the  world;  across  the  sea,  Independ- 
ents were  laying,  deep  and  broad  in  America, 
the  foundations  of  a  new  civilization.  So  many 
Brownists  were  living  in  England  in  1640,  that 
over  fifty  books  against  them  were  published 
in  the  following  ^\e  years.  So  many  in  London 
that  Archbishop  Laud  wrote  complaints  in  his 
Diary  (September  and  October,  1640)  that 
whenever  he  moved  about  the  streets  of  the 
city  ^* riotous  Brownists  cry  out  against  him.'' 
Among  many  other  facts  showing  the  power- 
ful influence  of  the  ideas  of  Browne  during  the 
Commonwealth,  there  is  one  that  needs  to  be 
mentioned  just  here.  Eobert  Baillie  (1599-1662 
— past  thirty  when  Browne  died),  one  of  the 
Scottish  Commissioners,  was  highly  honored 
by  the  most  eminent  divines  connected  with 
the  Westminster  Assembly.  In  tracing  the 
demand  made  by  the  Independents  m  that  body 
for  religious  liberty,  to  its  source,  he  went  back 
to  Robert  Browne.  He  wrote :  *  ^  Concerning 
the  magistrate.  Master  Browne  teacheth  that 
he  hath  no  right  to  meddle  at  all  in  any  matter 
of  Eeligion,  but  to  permit  the  liberty  and  free 
choice  of  Religion  to  the  conscience  of  every 
one  of  his  subjects''  .  .  .  ^^He  stood  in  his 
infamous  way  for  a  full  liberty  of  conscience. ' ' 
This  statement,  by  a  competent  authority,  an 

127 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

opponent,  makes  two  things  clear:  That 
Browne  demanded  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State;  and  that  he  was  the  source  of  the 
doctrine  of  religious  freedom,  then  advocated 
by  Independents. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  praise  of  Browne 
by  Burrage  is  fully  deserved:  *^One  of  the 
most  fearless  and  honest  religious  thinkers  of 
a  great  age"  (Early  English  Dissenters,  I.,  94). 
But  the  contention  in  this  work,  that  Browne 
was  not  really  a  Separatist  and  that  Early 
English  Independents  owed  nothing  to  his 
teaching  or  influence,  is  surely  a  serious  mis- 
take. Widespread  and  intelligent  tradition 
and  testimony  assert  the  contrary.  Even  the 
protestations  of  men  like  Robinson  of  Leiden 
and  Bradford  of  Plymouth  against  being 
called  ''Brownists''  (though  they  both  adopted 
his  principles)  prove  the  breadth  and  depth  of 
his  influence.  Even  if  only  a  **  nickname, '^  such 
a  term  reveals  historic  importance.  However 
disowned  himself,  his  doctrine  had  infected 
English  thought.  Those  who  departed  from 
his  precise  theories  worked  in  a  light  which  he 
had  created.  Many  yielded  to  his  power  while 
ignoring  or  deriding  him.  There  is  a  good 
American  illustration  of  the  true  situation. 
Republicans  before  the  Civil  War  refused  to 
be  called  Abolitionists  and  they  would  not 
accept  Garrison  as  their  prophet.  Neverthe- 
less, they  were  in  the  main  his  followers,  and 

128 


The  Independent  Congregation 

if  it  had  not  been  for  him  there  never  would 
have  been  any  Eepublican  Party. 

vn 

For  some  years  after  the  nominal  conformity 
of  Robert  Browne,  the  great  truths,  which  he 
had  advocated,  found  a  place  in  many  serious 
English  minds,  but  no  radical  or  extensive 
efforts  were  made  to  put  them  into  prac- 
tice. The  notable  **Scrooby-Leiden-Plymouth'' 
movement  was  at  the  time  inconspicuous.  The 
reign  of  James  I.  was  not  brilliant  but  mediocre 
in  religious  accomplishment,  with  the  exception 
of  the  splendid  translation  of  the  Bible  (1611). 
But  with  the  uprisings  against  Charles  I.,  the 
Puritan  Spirit  burst  into  flame.  Puritans,  as 
a  body,  sought  reformation  by  law  and  magis- 
trate. They  believed  as  much  in  a  State  Church 
as  Anglicans  and  as  little  in  toleration.  They 
did  not  understand  the  necessity  for  the  sep- 
aration of  Church  and  State.  But  under  the 
shelter  of  Puritanism,  many  movements 
started,  here  and  there,  which  afterwards  be- 
came Independent  Churches.  At  first  some  of 
these  were  broad  Anglican,  and  some  liberal 
Presbyterian,  but  the  logic  of  events  carried 
them  to  Independency,  practically  following 
the  Ideal  of  Browne. 

Very  soon  after  the  death  of  Browne,  the 
very  principles  he  had  early  taught  became 

129 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

dominant  national  forces.  The  Roundheads, 
victorious  at  Marston  Moor  and  Naseby, 
fought,  not  only  for  civil,  but  for  religious 
liberty.  Probably  few  beside  the  leaders  knew 
anything  about  the  Founder  of  Congrega- 
tionalism, and  none  cared  for  his  name,  but 
many  were  eager  to  have  the  method  of 
religious  life,  which  he  had  advocated,  become 
the  national  policy.  As  Cromwell  told  the 
House  of  Commons,  his  soldiers  fought  for 
'^liberty  of  conscience'^  and  would  not  be 
satisfied  with  anything  less.  These  men  had 
a  vision  of  the  great  truth  which  Lord  Acton 
(a  Catholic)  thus  describes:  *^The  idea  that 
religious  liberty  is  the  generating  principle  of 
civil,  and  that  civil  liberty  is  the  necessary 
condition  of  religious,  was  a  discovery  reserved 
for  the  seventeenth  century.  .  .  .  That  great 
political  idea.  .  .  .  has  been  the  soul  of  what 
is  great  and  good  in  the  progress  of  the  last 
two  hundred  years.'' 

As  early  as  July  4,  1635,  Cromwell  (1599- 
1658)  had  said  in  a  notable  speech  at  White- 
hall: ^^Love  all,  tender  all,  cherish  and  counte- 
nance all,  in  all  things  that  are  good.  And  if 
the  poorest  Christian,  the  most  mistaken 
Christian  shall  desire  to  live  peaceably  and 
quietly  under  you, — I  say,  if  any  shall  desire 
but  to  lead  a  life  of  godliness  and  honesty,  let 
him  be  protected"  And  John  Morley's  com- 
ment   on    these    words    is    richly    deserved: 

130 


The  Independent  Congregation 

*  ^  Toleration  was  now  in  Cromwell  neither  a 
conclusion  drawn  out  by  logical  reason  nor  a 
mere  dictate  of  political  expediency.  It  flowed 
from  a  rich  fountain  in  his  heart  of  sympathy 
with  men,  of  kindness  for  their  sore  struggles 
after  saving  truth,  of  compassion  for  their 
blind  stumbles  and  mistaken  paths.''  It  was  a 
common  saying  of  Cromwell:  Liberty  of  con- 
science is  one  of  the  most  precious  gifts  of  God. 
In  March,  1643,  he  censured  General  Crawford, 
who  had  rebuked  a  faithful  soldier  for  being  an 
Anabaptist:  *^I  advised  you  formerly  to  bear 
with  men  of  different  minds  from  you."  The 
next  year  (1644),  Cromwell  secured  an  order 
from  the  House  of  Commons  for  the  toleration 
of  all,  which  was  opposed  by  the  Presbyterians 
as  an  unwise  act,  being  described  by  Baillie, 
the  prominent  Scotch  divine,  already  quoted, 
in  these  words:  **The  great  shott  of  Cromwell 
and  Vane  is  to  have  a  libertie  for  all  religions 
without  any  exception"  (Letter,  1644).  This 
act  (Sept.  13,  1644)  directed:  *^Do  endeavor 
the  finding  out  some  ways  how  far  tender 
consciences,  who  cannot  in  all  things  submit 
to  the  common  Eule  which  shall  be  established, 
may  be  borne  with." 

Cromwell,  as  Protector  (1653),  began  with 
two  fundamental  princjiples:  (1)  The  tolera- 
tion of  various  forms  of  Dissent.  (2)  The 
establishment  of  a  state,  non-prelatic  church 
on  broad   evangelical  principles.     The   latter 

131 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

measure,  incompatible  with  pure  Congrega- 
tionalism as  advocated  by  Browne  and  with 
his  own  theory  of  toleration,  was  a  compromise 
which  was  maintained  after  a  fashion  for  a 
short  period.  Under  it,  the  clergy  were,  in  the 
main.  Independents.  The  English  Presbyte- 
rians, at  this  time,  were  friendly  because  quasi- 
Independents.  The  Baptists  presented  the 
chief  difficulty.  It  was  hard  for  them  to  accept 
tithes  and  for  Cromwell  to  endure  their  demand 
for  separation  of  Church  and  State.  He  real- 
ized the  incongruities  in  his  policy,  but  he,  at 
this  time,  earnestly  desired  both  general  toler- 
ation and  an  Established  Church. 

At  this  point,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  that 
Milton  earnestly  opposed  the  great  Protector, 
urging  that  tithes  for  the  support  of  any  church 
be  abolished  and  all  connection  of  Church  and 
State  absolutely  cease :  surely  the  wiser  policy, 
which  would  have  saved  Cromwell  many  vexa- 
tions, and  which  would  have  made  an  incalcu- 
lable contribution  to  the  progress  of  civiliza- 
tion. And  yet,  in  spite  of  this  difference  be- 
tween them,  Milton  wrote  of  Cromwell  in  his 
Sonnet:  ^^ Cromwell  our  Chief  of  Men": 

"  Help  us  to  save  free  conscience  from  the  paw 
Of  Hirling  Wolves,  whose  Gospel  is  their  maw." 

The  career  of  CromweU  is  not  spotless. 
There  is  enough  in  his  record  to  warrant  severe 
criticism.     The   most  deplorable  is  his   Irish 

132 


The  Independent  Congregation 

campaign,  with  the  cruel  slaughter  at  Drogheda 
(Sept.  10,  1649).  Such  things  cannot  be  justi- 
fied, but  it  ought  to  be  remembered  that  those 
people  suffered,  not  simply  because  they  were 
Catholics,  but  because  so-called  Irish  Rebels 
had  done  much  that  was  equally  inhuman. 
During  the  previous  eight  years  (from  the  days 
of  the  Irish  Massacre — 1641)  thousands  of 
Protestants  had  been  brutally  slain.  The  low- 
est estimate,  some  10,000;  a  conservative  con- 
clusion puts  the  number  at  30,000, — ten  times 
the  number  *^ butchered'^  at  Drogheda.  Over 
200  families  had  been  put  to  death  at  Kilmore 
by  sword,  fire  and  water ;  150  men,  women  and 
children  burned  alive  in  the  castle  at  Lisgool 
(the  list  of  similar  atrocities  is  long) :  and 
simply  because  they  were  Protestants !  Harsh 
as  the  ^^Cromwellian  Settlement^'  was,  the 
Protector  did  many  deeds  during  those  days, 
not  only  of  justice  but  of  mercy  (Hickson, 
Massacre  of  1641,  I.,  156).  Unfortunately  the 
spirit  of  the  time  was  inhuman.  But  in  spite 
of  serious  defects,  Cromwell  was  probably  the 
greatest  ruler  England  ever  had;  one  of  the 
three  most  masterful  civic  leaders  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race,  in  company  with  King  Alfred  and 
President  Lincoln,  the  latter  far  the  greatest. 

Cromwell  would  have  done  much  more  for 
religious  freedom  if  the  conditions  had  per- 
mitted him  to  do  so.  As  it  was,  he  stoutly 
warned    narrow-minded    Presbyterians     who 

133 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

hated  the  '* hideous  principle  of  toleration/' 
that  he  would  not  suffer  **the  unchristian  prin- 
ciple of  intolerance  to  be  turned  against  neigh- 
bors/' He  would  not  publicly  pledge  freedom 
to  Catholics  as  Cardinal  Mazarin  urged  (Bee. 
26,  1656),  but  he  was  very  tolerant  to  them  if 
quiet  and  loyal.  He  never  thought  it  wise  to  re- 
peal the  laws  against  Anglicans,  but  he  winked 
at  the  private  use  of  the  Prayer  Book.  He  was 
considerate  toward  Quakers,  when  Quakerism 
was  associated  with  much  that  was  intolerable. 
As  a  sensible  man  he  realized  that  many  of 
them  were  admirable  people,  that  some  were 
actually  crazy,  while  others  were  only  eccentric 
but  harmless.  He  protected  the  Socinian,  John 
Biddle,  from  the  ravenous  beasts  who  sought 
his  blood,  sending  him  to  a  comfortable  prison 
(a  castle  in  the  Scilly  Islands)  to  get  him  away 
from  his  enemies,  and  Cromwell  gave  him 
while  there  (two  and  a  half  years  from  Oct.  5, 
1655)  a  pension  of  a  hundred  crowns  a  year. 
He  was  friendly  toward  the  Jews;  and  while 
the  Council  would  not  vote  to  admit  them,  he 
permitted  them  to  enter  England,  one  by 
one,  and  he  even  protected  their  Synagogue 
in  London;  while  /to  an  Amsterdam  Jew, 
Manasseh  Ben  Israel,  he  gave  a  pension  of  a 
hundred  pounds  a  year ! 


134 


The  Independent   Congregation 

vni 

John  Milton  was  a  great  statesman  as  well 
as  a  great  poet,  and  he  was  far  in  advance  of 
his  age  respecting  both  civil  and  religious 
liberty :  not  only  far  in  advance  of  the  broadest 
Anglicans  and  Presbyterians,  bu,t  of  Cromwell 
and  of  many  of  the  great  Independent  Divines. 
Broadminded  Englishmen,  at  home  and  in  New 
England,  about  1645  and  after,  may  be  grouped 
into  three  parties  (not  including  Cromwell) 
on  the  subject  of  Toleration:  (1)  Limited  re- 
ligious toleration  under  an  established  Church 
of  some  sort :  John  Cotton  and  Thomas  Hooker 
in  New  England  and  some  of  the  Independents 
in  the  Westminster  Assembly.  (2)  A  wide 
latitude  of  belief  within  the  Anglican  Church: 
Thomas  Chillingworth,  Jeremy  Taylor, — and 
even  Eichard  Hooker  over  a  generation  before 
had  held  similar  views.  (3)  Absolute  religious 
freedom  (Catholics  excepted),  with  no  state 
church:  John  Milton,  Sir  Henry  Vane,  Eoger 
Williams, — ^who  spent  much  time  in  London 
(1643-1653), — the  broadest  of  them  all,  who 
would  have  included  Catholics.  To  this  group, 
later,  belonged  Quakers  like  George  Fox, 
Robert  Barclay,  and  William  Penn, — ^but  also 
tolerant  of  Papists.  And  all  these  men  had 
been  influenced,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the 
teachings  of  Robert  Browne. 

Milton  (1608-1674),  in  his  Areopagitica 
135 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(1644),  Ms  noblest  prose  and  no  greater  ever 
written,  or  ^*A  Plea  for  the  Liberty  of 
Unlicensed  Printing,''  argned  with  wonderful 
cogency  and  mighty  eloquence  for  freedom  of 
thought,  speech  and  press.  This  is  one  of  his 
most  notable  sentences:  **Give  me  the  liberty 
to  know,  to  utter,  and  to  argue  freely  according 
to  conscience,  above  all  liberties.''  But  in  this 
great  human  document  the  author  does  not 
specifically  discuss  religious  matters.  The 
problem  of  toleration  he  discussed  later  (1659) 
in  ''Civil  Power  in  Ecclesiastical  Causes"  (88 
pages  as  then  printed) :  a  clear,  strong  argu- 
ment, in  plain  English  as  befits  religious  dis- 
course, in  advocacy  of  complete  separation  of 
Church  and  State.  The  argument  is  mainly 
Scriptural,  with  no  references  to  modern 
instances  like  Holland  or  Transylvania,  and 
no  use  of  the  writings  of  Marsilius  or  Wiclif 
(to  whom  Milton,  however,  paid  a  glowing 
tribute) ;  and  he  refers  to  neither  Socinus  nor 
Browne. 

Milton's  main  contention  in  this  treatise  is 
that  to  compel  a  man  to  believe  or  obey  in 
religion, — a  spiritual  matter,  is  neither  pleas- 
ing to  God  nor  helpful  to  man,  nor  safe  for  the 
State.  Everything  in  religion  is  vicious  unless 
sincere;  vicious  if  under  duress.  Two  of  his 
statements  follow:  ''The  civil  power,  hath 
neither  right  nor  can  do  right  by  forcing 
religious  things."     And  this:  "Force  neither 

136 


The  Independent  Congregation 

instructs  in  religion  nor  begets  repentance  or 
amendment  of  life,  but  on  the  contrary  hard- 
ness of  heart,  formality,  hypocrisy. '^  And 
Milton  well  affirmed  that  Protestants  are  more 
to  blame  if  they  indulge  in  persecuting  than 
Catholics:  *^The  more  he  professes  to  be  a 
true  Protestant,  the  more  he  has  to  answer  for 
his  persecuting  than  a  papist. '' 

Milton  made  a  broad  distinction  between 
false  opinions  (which  should  be  tolerated)  and 
a  heresy  which  is  an  idolatrous  practice,  and 
must  not  be  tolerated.  This  was  the  ground 
of  his  refusal  to  tolerate  papists :  because  they 
were  idolaters — not  simply  on  account  of  their 
Catholic  belief:  an  argument  that  has  no 
force  with  us.  But  we  must  remember  that 
England  was  then  fighting  an  uncertain  battle 
against  the  Spirit  of  the  Inquisition;  and  that 
many  British  Catholics  were  plotting  against 
the  government, — the  situation  may  be  crudely 
illustrated  by  an  American  instance:  We  dis- 
franchise polygamous  Mormons,  not  because  of 
their  religious  faith,  but  because  plural  mar- 
riages are  not  only  immoral  but  criminal. 

John  Morley  has  nobly  written  of  Milton 
(Cromwell,  159) :  *^It  was  Milton's  lofty  genius 
that  did  the  work  of  bringing  a  great  universal 
idea  [toleration]  into  active  relation  with  what 
all  men  could  understand  and  what  all  practical 
men  wished  for.''  This  statement  is  perfectly 
true.    But  Mr.  Morley  falls  into  error,  not  only 

137 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

in  writing  of  Cromwell  and  Milton,  but  in  dis- 
cussing Voltaire,  by  asserting  that  religious 
freedom  has  been  wholly  due  **to  the  growth 
of  rationalism/'  He  completely  ignores  the 
large  part  played  by  Congregational  Polity, 
leading  on  to  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  and  so  putting  a  permanent  stop  to  the 
Martyrdom  of  Man.  The  growth  of  ration- 
alism fluctuates;  it  does  not  necessarily  end 
persecutions;  and  it  cannot  provide  a  perma- 
nent solution  of  the  problem,  making  it  organic 
in  the  very  structure  of  civilization.  **  Ration- 
alism'* has,  for  a  long  period,  been  dominant 
in  Germany,  but  in  recent  years  the  world  saw 
Bismarck  oppressing  Catholics  and  only  yes- 
terday eminent  German  pastors  (such  as 
Jatho  and  Traub)  were  driven  out  of  their 
pulpits  by  the  government.  The  rationalistic 
spirit  alone  cannot  create  tolerant  sentiments 
or  insure  humane  actions.  German  rational- 
ism, by  its  arrogance  and  frightfulness,  has 
kept  the  world  in  blood  and  tears  for  four 
years.  Rationalism  is  pronounced  in  Norway 
and  Sweden  (a  majority  of  university  profes- 
sors there  are  actually  unbelievers),  but  many 
positions  are  closed  to  an  open  advocate  of  un- 
orthodox opinions. 

It  has  needed  something  more  than  the 
growth  of  rationalism  to  emancipate  the  world 
from  priestcraft  and  statecraft.  Moreover,  the 
reorganization  of  religion  which   set   Church 

138 


The  Independent  Congregation 

and  State  apart,  not  only  provided  the  neces- 
sary opportunity  for  the  growth  of  rationalism, 
but  it  also  provided  the  strongest  motive  and 
impulse  in  that  direction.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  Lecky,  in  discussing  the  same  problem 
(Rationalism  in  Europe)  failed,  like  Morley,  to 
take  account  of  the  organic  agencies  and  the 
creative  influences  here  emphasized.  The  same 
unfortunate  limitation  is  found  in  that  wonder- 
ful treasure-house  of  facts:  Andrew  D.  White's 
''Warfare  of  Science.''  The  basic  fact  is  this: 
Eationalism  often  produces  only  indifference, 
— sometimes  a  prophet  of  toleration  like 
Erasmus  or  Voltaire  or  John  Stuart  Mill;  but 
such  men  alone  would  never  have  secured  what 
we  know  as  modern  religious  freedom. 


IX 

The  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
were  remarkable  men,  and  the  ''Confession" 
which  they  formulated  is  a  notable  document, 
but  few  today  consider  it  a  true  description  of 
Biblical  teaching  or  an  adequate  interpretation 
of  human  life  or  divine  providence.  During  its 
many  sessions  for  four  years  (1643-1647) 
about  half  of  its  151  original  members  were 
generally  in  attendance.  The  large  majority 
were  Presbyterians,  and  they  were  dominated 
by  the  narrower  Scottish  Commissioners,  also 
Presbyterians,  who  could  debate  but  not  vote. 

139 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

The  Independent  divines  were  less  than  a 
dozen,  ^lyq  of  whom,  under  the  leadership  of 
Philip  Nye,  were  Separatists  who  had  recently 
returned  from  an  enforced  exile  in  Holland. 
Thomas  Goodwin  (1600-1680)  was  probably 
the  ablest  of  this  band,  a  frequent  preacher 
before  Parliament,  a  favorite  of  Cromwell, — 
at  his  bedside  when  he  died.  Although  not  a 
member, — he  did  not  change  from  the  Presby- 
terian to  the  Independent  position  until  1644, 
— John  Owen  (1616-1683),  an  abler  man  than 
any  of  the  others,  cooperated  with  them. 
Owen  was  a  very  superior  scholar,  tolerant  in 
spirit  and  action,  who  went  so  far  as  to  remon- 
strate with  the  New  England  leaders  (1669) 
for  yielding  to  Presbyterian  influence  and  in- 
dulging in  persecution:  after  1666  he  had  a 
quiet  pastorate  of  an  Independent  church  in 
London  until  his  death. 

In  January,  1644,  the  Independents  in  the 
Assembly  addressed  to  Parliament  a  protest, 
— ^'Apologetical  Narration,'' — stating  the  case 
against  the  Presbyterian  system  (in  the  spirit 
of  Milton's  words:  ^^ Presbyter"  is  simply 
Priest  writ  large!),  and  a;rguing  ^powerfully 
for  Independency  and  general  religious  free- 
dom. It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  words 
used  by  these  Independents  were  substantially 
reproduced  over  a  hundred  and  thirty  years 
later  in  the  famous  Declaration  for  Eeligious 
Liberty,  incorporated  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as 

140 


The  Independent  Congregation 

Article  XVI.  enacted  by  the  Virginia  Assembly 
June  12,  1776! 

These  Independents  were  outvoted,  but,  so 
earnest  was  their  opposition  and  so  cogent 
their  reasoning,  that  the  Presbyterian  mem- 
bers found  difficulty  in  carrying  their  measures 
against  this  small  minority,  while  the  outside 
public  were  deeply  impressed  with  their  argu- 
ments. The  sturdy  Scottish  divine,  Eobert 
Baillie,  wrote  of  them  (Nov.,  1645):  *^Inde- 
pendents  in  the  last  meeting  of  our  grand 
committee  of  accommodation  have  expressed 
their  desyns  for  tolleration,  not  only  to  them- 
selves but  to  other  sects.*'  This  same  Scottish 
Commissioner,  Baillie,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend, 
stated  the  common  opinion  of  the  Assembly  in 
these  words:  ^^ Liberty  of  Conscience  and  tol- 
eration of  aU  or  any  religion  is  so  prodigious 
an  impiety  that  this  religious  parliament  can- 
not but  abhor  the  very  meaning  of  it!" 

It  was  a  great  misfortune  to  Great  Britain 
and  the  world  that  the  Independents  failed  in 
their  earnest  endeavor.  But  in  a  larger  way, 
they  gloriously  succeeded.  The  English  Pres- 
byterian churches, — those  then  in  existence  and 
afterwards  organized, — became  increasingly 
broad  as  the  years  passed,  so  that,  under  the 
influence  of  their  teaching  and  other  forces, 
these  churches,  by  1800,  had  nearly  all  become 
practically  Independent:  nurseries  of  religious 
progress,  out  of  which,  as  we  shall  see,  came 

141 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

some  of  the  strongest  advocates  of  religious 
freedom  that  England  has  ever  produced,  the 
latest  and  greatest  being  James  Martineau. 
Through  them  the  teaching  of  Eobert  Browne, 
little  known  and  nowhere  honored,  came  to 
noble  fruitage. 


The  ** Friends,''  though  they  mentioned  not 
his  name,  were  followers,  in  the  main,  of 
Robert  Browne,  but  with  a  strain  of  mysticism, 
— some  with  a  wild  spirit  of  fanaticism.  They 
were  extreme  Separatists,  not  only  from  world- 
liness  but  from  all  entangling  alliances  with 
civil  government. 

George  Fox  (1624-1691),  the  founder  of  the 
Quakers  or  Friends,  was  a  psychopathic,  with 
glorious  but  perplexing  visions ;  Apostle  of  the 
Inward  Light;  a  strange  mystic:  heroic, 
patient,  untiring;  with  bitter  tongue  against 
the  wickedness  of  the  world  and  also  often 
active  against  people  of  other  faith, — a  man, 
who  condemned  persecution  with  considerable 
intolerance;  but  to  be  remembered  with  grati- 
tude for  many  things,  especially  for  writing  a 
noble  exposition  of  religious  freedom  (1677) 
to  John  Sobieski  (Johannes  III.),  King  of 
Poland,  in  which  these  words  occur:  *^0  that 
all  Christendom  had  lived  in  peace  and  unity, 

142 


The  Independent  Congregation 

that  they  might  by  their  moderation  have 
judged  both  Turk  and  Jew;  and  let  all  have 
their  liberty,  that  own  God  and  Jesus  Christ'' 
{Journal,  523). 

This  was  his  view  from  the  beginning  of  his 
ministry,  an  inevitable  consequence  of  his 
position  respecting  non-resistance  to  evil.  He 
adopted  from  the  Independents  their  theory 
of  separation  of  Church  and  State;  and  while 
he  realized  the  necessity  for  civil  government, 
he  taught  Friends  to  refrain  from  making 
oaths  or  going  to  law.  The  testimony  of 
Friends  from  his  day,  by  word  and  deed,  has 
been  powerful  against  persecution  and  for 
freedom:  No  Quaker  has  ever  lifted  up  his 
hand  to  punish  a  man  for  his  religious  opinions. 

In  William  Penn  (1644-1718),  the  Quakers 
found  a  leader  far  broader,  saner,  and  greater 
than  Fox.  He  was  a  man  of  distinguished 
family.  He  spent  two  years  at  Christ  College, 
Oxford,  and  while  there  was  influenced  by  cor- 
respondence with  the  prominent  Independent, 
John  Owen.  Called  home  in  1662,  he  was 
whipped,  beaten,  and  turned  out  of  doors  by  his 
father  because  he  had  become  a  Quaker.  Later, 
he  became  intimate  with  James  II.,  a  fact  which 
subjected  him  to  the  charge  of  being  a  Jesuit, 
though  he  constantly  used  his  influence  to  pro- 
tect those  accused  of  heresy.  While  still  a 
young  man   (1671),  he  published  his  notable 

143 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

book:  *^The  Great  Case  of  Liberty  of  Con- 
science, ' '  in  which  many  passages  of  broad  and 
tolerant  spirit,  like  the  following,  are  found: 

^*If  we  do  allow  the  honor  of  our  creation 
due  to  Grod  only,  and  that  no  other  besides 
himself  has  endowed  us  with  those  excellent 
gifts  of  understanding,  reason,  judgment,  and 
faith,  and  consequently  that  he  only  is  the 
object  as  well  as  the  author,  both  of  our  faith, 
worship,  and  service;  then  whosoever  shall 
injterpose  their  authority  to  enact  faith  and 
worship  in  a  way  that  seems  not  to  us  congru- 
ous with  what  he  has  discovered  to  us  to  be 
faith  and  worship  or  to  restrain  us  from  what 
we  are  persuaded  is  our  indispensable  duty, 
they  evidently  usurp  this  authority,  and  invade 
his  incommunicable  right  of  government  over 
conscience ''  (Works:  11.  135,  London  ''Ed. 
1825). 

And  Penn  practiced  what  he  preached.  In 
formulating  the  constitution  of  Pennsylvania 
about  a  dozen  years  later,  he  made  fundamental 
in  it  the  principle  of  religious  freedom.  And 
several  years  before  this,  he  had  incorporated 
the  same  principle  in  the  ^^Concessions,'' 
drawn  up  for  West  New  Jersey,  where  we  find 
these  words:  ^^That  no  man  nor  number  of 
men  upon  earth  hath  power  or  authority  to 
rule  over  men's  consciences  in  religious  mat- 
ters" (Chap.  XVI.). 

144 


The  Independent  Congregation 

While  no  direct  dependence  of  Fox  and  Penn 
upon  Eobert  Browne  can  be  traced,  it  is  never- 
theless perfectly  evident  that  without  his  in- 
fluence upon  England  through  the  Indepen- 
dents, no  such  movement  as  that  of  the  Quakers 
would  have  existed.  He  created  the  atmos- 
phere which  made  them  possible.  They  de- 
veloped along  other  lines  his  principles  of  the 
equality  of  all  disciples  of  Christ.  They  in- 
sisted upon  the  independence  of  all  souls  and 
their  direct  access  to  God.  Moreover,  like 
Browne,  they  demanded  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  and  therefore  freedom  of 
conscience. 

In  the  generation  from  the  Commonwealth 
to  the  Eevolution,  all  the  great  pleas  for  relig- 
ious freedom  were  made  by  Independents 
(including  Baptists  and  Quakers)  with  the 
exception  of  that  issued  in  1647  by  Jeremy 
Taylor  (1613-1667):  A  Discourse  of  the 
Liberty  of  Prophesying.  The  argument  is 
eloquent  and  superficially  broad:  an  earnest 
plea  for  toleration  which  exerted  a  wholesome 
influence  especially  upon  Anglican  minds,  but 
the  writer  had  a  very  imperfect  conception  of 
religious  equality.  This  treatise  would  not 
probably  have  been  written,  if  Episcopacy  had 
then  been  dominant ;  but  being  at  that  time  an 
outlaw,  its  friends  might  well  argue  for  tol- 
erant consideration. 

145 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

In  ithese  pages  many  noble  sentiments  are 
expressed:  ^^All  such  opinions,  in  which  the 
public  interest  of  the  commonwealth  and  the 
foundation  of  faith  and  a  good  life,  are  not 
concerned,  are  to  be  permitted  freely"  (Section 
22).  Such  teachings,  however,  had  long  been 
the  accepted  doctrines  of  the  Independents. 
But  it  was  helpful  to  have  a  Churchman  advo- 
cate them:  and  that  an  Anglican  clergyman 
should  issue  such  a  book  shows  what  a  pro- 
found impression  the  ^^  gospel  of  religious 
liberty,'*  as  advocated  by  Independents,  had 
made  upon  the  English  people.  But  as 
Taylor's  plea  went  little  farther  than  mere 
toleration,  the  breadth  of  his  pages  was  more 
apparent  than  real.  The  general  freedom 
which  he  granted  to  the  heretic  was  only  a 
temporary  favor,  not  an  inherent  right  or 
constitutional  privilege.  To  be  sure,  there  are 
hints  of  a  wider  horizon  and  a  more  catholic 
spirit,  but  if  theories  no  more  radical  than 
those  of  this  eloquent  divine  had  been  incor- 
porated into  the  structure  of  modern  govern- 
men,t,  the  Martyrdom  of  Man  would  not  have 
ceased  and  the  Pilgrim  Glory  would  not  have 
appeared. 


146 


The  Independent  Congregation 

XI 

During  a  whole  generation,  under  tiie  reign 
of  Charles  II.  and  that  of  his  brother,  James 
II.,  the  English  government  passed  rigorous 
laws  for  the  suppression  of  freedom  of  thought 
in  religion,  and  the  Independents  had  to  endure 
many  hardships,  although  local  public  opinion 
often  treated  these  obnoxious  laws  mth  indif- 
ference and  officials  frequently  neglected  to 
enforce  them  against  their  neighbors.  Under 
such  precarious  shelter  dissenting  chapels  were 
built,  here  and  there,  and  numerous  Indepen- 
dents rose  to  considerable  influence.  This  sit- 
uation itself  reveals  the  steady  growth  of  the 
spirit  of  toleration. 

What  John  Locke  (1632-1704)  demanded  was 
that  this  growing  sentiment  of  toleration  be 
made  fundamental  in  the  constitution  of  the 
land.  He  boldly  asserted  in  his  ^' First  Letter 
concerning  Toleration"  (1689):  ^^It  is  neither 
declaration  of  indulgence,  nor  acts  of  compre- 
hension, such  as  have  yet  been  practised  or 
projected  amongst  us  that  can  do  the  work. 
The  first  will  but  palliate,  the  second  increase 
our  evils.  Absolute  liberty,  just  and  true 
liberty,  equal  and  impartial  liberty,  is  the  thing 
we  stand  in  need  of/'  He  had  reached  these 
convictions  when  a  young  man,  as  early  as  1666. 
Locke  had  been  reared  in  the  atmosphere  of 
Independency;    and    his    broad    and    catholic 

147 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

mind,  among  its  many  notable  achievements, 
reached  a  perfect  mastery  of  the  fundamental 
principle,  by  which  alone  the  emancipation  of 
the  Gospel  from  priest  and  king  could  be 
secured.  His  discussion  of  this  principle  in  his 
four  ** Letters  on  Toleration,'' — the  last  writ- 
ten just  before  his  death, — is  a  voluminous, 
comprehensive,  and  masterly  presentation  of 
all^hases  of  this  great  problem. 

Constitutional  liberty,  which  the  Englishmen 
of  Locke's  day  had  won,  was  vindicated  by  his 
reasoning  as  resting  upon  principles  the  most 
solid  and  indestructible.  Locke's  ideas  of 
toleration  were  far  in  advance  of  his  day. 
**  There  is  absolutely  no  such  thing  under  the 
Gospel,"  says  Locke,  *^as  a  Christian  Common- 
wealth"; that  is  to  say,  the  State,  as  such, 
knows  nothing  of  religious  differences,  and  has 
no  right  to  favor  any  religious  opinions  and 
practices,  or  to  control  them  except  as  they 
may  in,terfere  with  the  civil  order  of  society. 

The  *^ Letters  on  Toleration,"  by  Locke, 
make  a  substantial  volume  of  about  six  hundred 
pages ;  it  abounds  in  lofty  sentiments  and  pow- 
erful arguments.  The  following  are  interest- 
ing specimens:  ^^The  only  business  of  the 
Church  is  the  salvation  of  souls :  and  it  no  ways 
concerns  the  commonwealth,  or  any  member  of 
it,  that  this  or  the  other  ceremony  be  there 
made  use  of.  Neither  the  use,  nor  the  omission, 
of  any  ceremonies  in  those  religious  assemblies 

148 


The  Independent  Congregation 

does  either  advantage  or  prejudice  the  life, 
liberty,  or  estate,  of  any  man.  ''...**  The  care 
of  souls  cannot  belong  to  the  civil  magistrate, 
because  his  power  consists  only  in  outward 
force:  but  true  and  saving  religion  consists  in 
the  inward  persuasion  of  the  mind,  without 
which  nothing  can  be  acceptable  to  God. '  ^  .  .  .^- 
**As  the  magistrate  has  no  power  to  impose, 
by  his  laws,  the  use  of  any  rites  and  ceremonies 
in  any  church;  so  neither  has  he  any  power  to 
forbid  the  use  of  such  rites  and  ceremonies  as 
are  already  received,  approved,  and  practiced 
by  any  church :  because,  if  he  did  so,  he  would 
destroy  the  church  itself;  the  end  of  whose  in- 
stitution is  only  to  worship  God  with  freedom, 
after  its  own  manner''  (Works,  London  Ed. 
1823.11,30,33).  J_ 

The  Act  of  Toleration  (1689),  the  outcome 
of  the  English  Revolution,  applied  these  prin- 
ciples in  only  a  small  measure  and  left  much 
to  be  done:  and  much  is  still  to  be  done  in 
Great  Britain  before  Locke's  ideal  is  reached. 
However,  this  Act  did  benefit  Dissenters,  al- 
though it  did  not  improve  the  condition  of 
Catholics.  Civil  rights  remained  limited  by 
the  obnoxious  Test  Act  (1673),  which  required 
that  all  officials,  to  hold  office,  must  first  par- 
take of  the  sacrament  in  an  Anglican  Church! 

It  was  the  good  fortune  of  Voltaire  to  spend 
some  time  in  England  (1726-1729)  a  generation 
after  the  death  of  Locke.    In  his  English  ex- 

149 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

I  periences,   he   became    deeply   interested,   not 

i  only  in  Locke's  *^ Human  Understanding"  and 

;  the    ^^Eeasonableness    of    Christianity/'    but 

'  especially  in  his  Letters  on  Toleration.     The 

impressions  made  by  the  latter  were  deepened 

/  by  his   associations   with  Quakers.     He  went 

j  home   to   France   a  new  man,   with   radically 

i  ditferent  ideas  of  life.  AVhen  in  1762,  Galas  was 

1  broken  on  the  wheel  and  the  family  of  Sirven 

Iput  to  torture  (a  little  later  La  Barre — 1766 — 
was  condemned  to  the  stake,  but  the  sentence 
,  was   changed  to   beheading),   Voltaire   flamed 
^  forth  into  a  denunciation  of  ^^The  Infamous" 
which  stirred  the  whole  world.    About  this  time 
his    hot    indignation    expressed    itself    in    ^^A 
Treatise  on  Toleration."    In  it  we  find  many 
such  sentences  as  these:  *^The  law  of  persecu- 
tion then  is  equally  absurd  and  barbarous;  it 
is  the  law  of  tigers:  nay,  it  is  even  still  more 
savage,  for  tigers  destroy  only  for  the  sake  of 
food,  whereas  we  have  butchered  one  another 
on   account   of   a   sentence    or   a   paragraph" 
(Chap.  VI.). 
f      TE  is  an  interesting  reflection,  showing  how 
\   far  a  generous  impulse  or  a  great  thought  may 
:  project  itself,  to  remember  that  the  movement 
for  the   separation   of    Church   and   State,  to 
which   Eobert    Browne    contributed    so    much, 
went  on  deepening  and  broadening  through  the 
i  mighty   men   of   the    Commonwealth,    through 
j  the  Quakers,  and  then  through  the  pages  of 

150 


The  Independent  Congregation 

Locke,  until  it  transformed  the  mighty  spirit 
of  Voltaire,  and  through  him  (and  in  other 
ways),  it  profoundly  stirred  the  hearts  of 
Franklin,  Jefferson,  and  Madison,  and  helped 
(by  this  and  other  channels)  to  give  us  in 
America  absolute  religious  equality:  the  con- 
summate flowering  of  the  Pilgrim  Glory.         — 

Whoever  tells  the  story  of  the  English  Inde- 
pendents must  not  fail  to  mention  that  pow- 
erful thinker  and  progressive  liberal,  Joseph 
Priestley  (a  hundred  years  later  than  Locke: 
1733-1804),  a  man  with  wonderful  versatility 
as  preacher,  scholar,  scientist,  philosopher, 
author;  with  almost  superhuman  industry, 
who,  in  addition  to  parish  duties  and  scientific 
experiments,  could  issue  for  years  a  pamphlet 
a  month,  and  in  addition  a  substantial  volume  a 
year.  Priestley  was,  withal,  a  man  of  generous 
spirit,  which  made  him  a  remarkable  contro- 
versialist, who  never  abused  or  misrepresented 
his  opponent. 

In  1787,  Priestley  wrote  ''A  Letter  to 
William  Pitt  on  the  subject  of  Toleration,''  in 
which  he  clearly  and  forcibly  advocated  the 
great  cause  of  religious  liberty.  But  nearly 
twenty  years  before  this,  when  a  young  man 
of  thirty-five,  he  issued  a  volume:  ** First 
Principles  of  Government''  (1768),  which 
was  largely  devoted  to  the  same  subject;  and 
in  this  treatise  (300  pp.),  he  places  *^the  most 
valuable  interests  of  mankind  [civil  and  relig- 

151 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ious  freedom]  on  a  broader  and  firmer  basis 
than  Mr.  Locke. '^ 

Some  of  his  statements  are  especially  worthy 
of  attention:  ^^ Those  societies  [nations]  have 
ever  enjoyed  the  most  happiness  and  have  been 
in  the  most  flourishing  state,  where  the  civil 
magistrates  have  meddled  the  least  in  religion. 
.  .  .  There  is  something  in  the  nature  of 
religion  that  makes  it  more  than  out  of  the 
proper  sphere  or  province  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate to  intermeddle  with  it.  The  duties  of 
religion,  properly  understood,  seem  to  be,  in 
some  measure,  incompatible  with  the  interfer- 
ence of  the  civil  power.  For  the  purpose  and 
object  of  religion  necessarily  suppose  the 
powers  of  individuals  and  a  responsibility 
which  is  the  consequence  of  those  powers;  so 
that  the  civil  magistrate,  by  taking  any  of 
those  powers  from  individuals  and  assuming 
them  to  himself,  doth  so  far  incapacitate  them 
for  the  duties  of  religion.  .  .  .  The  more 
sensible  part  of  mankind  are  evidently  in  a 
progress  to  the  belief,  that  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  jurisdiction,  being  things  of  a  totally 
different  nature,  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  wholly 
disengaged  from  one  another'^  (pp.  Ill,  139, 
296). 

The  plea  of  Priestley  was  for  something  far 
greater  than  even  ** Universal  Toleration'':  a 
demand  for  the  rights  of  the  individual,  that 
he  may  possess  and  enjoy  his  belief,  free  from 

152 


The  Independent  Congregation 

external  restraints,  civil  or  ecclesiastical. 
This  means  the  complete  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  as  urged  by  Robert  Browne :  a  good 
illustration  of  which  he  found  in  Pennsylvania, 
where  he  happily  spent  the  last  ten  years  of 
his  life,  having  himself  suffered  severely  at 
the  hands  of  a  Birmingham  mob,  which  was 
inflamed,  not  only  by  political  passion  but  also 
by  religious  hatred. 


153 


CHAPTER    IV 
THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  AMERICA 


THE  PILGRIM  GLORY  IN  FULL  BLOOM 

A  Free  Soul  in  a  Free  Church  in  a  Free  State 

Robert  Browne:  The  Church  is  a  Christocentric  Democ- 
racy, separated  from  the  world,  under  the  lordship  of 
Christ  alone,  with  implications  of  civil  and  religious 
freedom. 

John  Robinson  and  the  Pilgrims:  The  Church  is  a  Com- 
pany of  the  followers  of  Jesus,  covenanted  to  live  in 
his  spirit  and  do  God's  will, — broad  Separatists  with 
strong  democratic  instincts. 

John  Cotton  and  Thomas  Hooker:  The  Church  is  a  Con- 
gregation of  God's  people  with  an  aristocratic  elder- 
ship,— not  separated  from  the  State,  but  part  of  a 
Theocracy. 

Roger  Williams:  The  Church  is  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ,  all  its  members  equal  before  God,  its  works 
and  weapons  being  spiritual,  so  that  it  stands  apart 
from  the  State  and  both  grant  liberty  of  conscience  to 
all. 

John.  Wise:  The  Church  is  a  Homocentric  Democracy, — 
all  its  members  equal  and  all  churches  independent, 
being  the  spiritual  companion  of  the  State:  both  democ- 
racies based  on  liberty,  equality,  and  the  right  reason 
inherent  in  human  nature. 


156 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  AMERICA 


The  ** Contribution  of  America''  began  to 
take  shape  about  1600  on  the  east  coast  of 
England;  it  gathered  strength  and  endured 
discipline  for  a  few  years  in  Holland  under 
the  leadership  of  a  very  remarkable  man,  John 
Robinson;  it  came  across  the  Atlantic,  seeking 
a  larger  life,  in  the  souls  of  the  small  Mayflower 
Band;  and  it  first  took  root  in  our  soil  at 
Plymouth.  Since  those  days  the  Martyrdom 
of  Man  has  waned,  and  Civilization  has  every- 
where made  progress  toward  perfect  religious 
equality. 

During  the  first  decade  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  groups  of  people  in  and  about  the 
neighboring  towns  of  Scrooby,  Gainsborough, 
Austerfield,  near  the  east  coast  of  England, 
united  in  a  church  organization,  using  as  the 
Bond  of  Union  a  brief  covenant,  substantially 
as  follows:  *^We  the  Lord's  free  people,  join 
ourselves,  by  a  covenant  of  the  Lord,  into  a 
church-estate  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Gospel, 
to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  made  known  or  to  be 

157 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

made  known  unto   us,   according  to  our  best 
endeavors''  (IV.  Mass.  Hist.  Coll.,  III.  9). 

These  people  were  Calvinists  and  Sepa- 
ratists, but  they  chose  for  the  basis  of  their 
religious  organization  a  Life-purpose,  rather 
than  a  dogmatic  formula.  They  believed  in  the 
main  principles  advocated  by  Robert  Browne, 
but  they  very  properly  refused  to  be  called 
Brownists;  first,  because  it  was  an  offensive 
nickname  (as  Robinson  declared) ;  and  all  the 
more  so,  because  Bro^vne  (still  living)  had 
nominally  forsaken  these  principles;  and 
second,  because  they  found  this  doctrine  in  the 
New  Testament  (as  BroTvaie  himself  had)  and 
they  proposed  to  build  on  Scripture  truth,  not 
on  human  tradition. 

The  story  of  these  Pilgrims  in  England, 
their  difficult  escape  to  Holland  (1608),  their 
year  at  Amsterdam,  their  eleven  years  at 
Leiden  (1609-1620),  their  voyage  to  America 
in  the  Mayflower , — this  wonderfully  interesting 
story  has  been  so  frequently  and  so  eloquently 
told  that  it  need  not  be  repeated  here.  The 
inspiring  facts  are  familiar.  Only  that  part 
of  the  story  need  now  be  given  that  makes 
clear  their  special  contribution  to  civilization, 
wherein  we  find  their  true  and  abiding  glory. 

Robinson  (1575-1625)  became  sole  pastor 
when  the  church  removed  to  Leiden,  just  as 
the  Twelve  Years'  Truce  began  between  Hol- 
land and  Spain  (1609)  :  an  auspicious  moment. 

158 


The  Contribution  of  America 

He  was  probably  born  in  Gainsborough.  He 
took  kigh  rank  at  Cambridge  University, 
studying  at  Corpus  Christi  (where  Browne  was 
educated)  and  was  honored  with  a  fellowship. 
After  seven  years,  he  left  Cambridge  and 
served  as  curate  in  the  Established  Church, 
in  or  near  Norwich  (1600-1604),  a  region  alive 
with  Brownist  sentiments.  Here  he  became  a- 
Separatist  and  soon  after  joined  what  became 
the  Pilgrim  Church.  They  were  fortunate  in 
having  such  a  leader,  of  whom  Masson  wrote : 
^^So  powerful  were  his  qualities  of  head  and 
heart,  ^' — that  he  may  well  be  regarded  as  the 
finest  representative  of  Independency  (Milton, 
II.,  542).  We  therefore  find  symbolized  in 
him  what  was  essential  in  the  Pilgrim  Glory: 
the  very  heart  of  the  contribution  of  America 
to  the  emancipation  of  the  Gospel  from  priest 
and  king:  the  treasure  which  came  over  in  the 
Mayflower. 

The  standing  of  Robinson  at  Cambridge  and 
the  high  position  as  scholar  and  disputant 
which  he  won  in  the  University  of  Leiden,  show 
that  he  was  a  man  of  remarkable  intellectual 
ability.  But  he  possessed  qualities  of  char- 
acter still  more  unusual:  a  saintly  spirit,  a 
sweet  temper,  *^A  broad  and  tolerant  habit  of 
mind^'  (Fiske,  Beginnings  of  New  England, 
72).  Prof.  Walker  is  fully  justified  in  calling 
him  ^^the  greatest  of  the  Separatists''  (Con- 
gregational Churches  in  U.  S.,  71). 

159 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

How  Siturdy  a  Separatist  he  was  is  seen  in 
these  words  of  his  in  criticism  of  a  liberal 
Anglican  Church  in  Norwich:  *^St.  Andrews 
is  not  a  people  separated  and  sanctified  from 
the  world  into  a  holy  covenant  with  God,  but 
a  confused  assembly.  ...  It  hath  not  the  lib- 
ertie  eyther  to  enjoye  anye  minister,  though 
never  so  holye  or  to  remove  anie  though  never 
so  propheane,  but  at  the  will  of  the  bishop'^ 
(Burrage,  New  Facts,  19).  In  his  chief  work, 
**A  Justification  of  Separation''  (1610),  in 
which  his  main  plea  was  made  for  a  separation 
of  the  Lord's  free  people  from  the  worldly 
world,  he  also  lays  emphasis  on  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  local  church:  ^^The  Lord  having 
appointed  none  other  church,  under  the  New 
Testament,  but  a  particular  congregation" 
(473). 

Robinson  advised  the  members  of  his  church, 
who  were  departing  for  America,  to  shake  off 
the  name  ^^Brownist."  And  this  was  wise 
advice,  for  the  reasons  just  given.  But  it  was 
common  knowledge  that  the  church  was  build- 
ing on  foundations  which  Browne  had  discov- 
ered and  declared  to  be  those  of  the  Primitive 
Churches.  All  this  Bostmck,  who  knew 
Eobinson  and  his  church  in  Leiden,  clearly 
stated  when  he  wrote,  out  of  his  full  informa- 
tion: ^*  Master  Robinson,  the  pastor  of  the 
Brownist  Church"  (Utter  Routing  of  Inde- 
pendents: 1646). 

160 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Early  Separatists  were  deeply  concerned 
about  a  subject  which  seems  to  us  quite  trivial : 
For  a  time  it  was  commonly  held  by  most  of 
them  that  it  was  a  sin  to  attend  the  English 
parish  churches,  such  attendance  being  a 
harmful  participation  in  popish  rites  and  an 
unwise  approval  of  a  State  Church  and  all  its 
evils.  However  narrow  this  view  may  seem  to 
us,  the  problem  was  then  **a  living  issue/' 
And  not  so  strange,  when  we  consider  that 
bishops  then  fined,  imprisoned,  and  mutilated 
people  for  attending  Separatist  meetings! 

The  only  reason  for  referring  to  the  matter 
here  is  to  show  the  quality  of  Eobinson's 
character:  How  he  bore  himself  in  this  contro- 
versy. His  views  changed  somewhat  at  this 
point  during  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his  life, 
but  always  in  the  direction  of  increasing  cath- 
olicity, which  reflected  great  honor  upon  him. 

The  treatise,  **  Justification  of  Separation,'' 
contains  an  elaborate  and  forcible  reply  to 
those  who  charged  him,  and  those  whom  he 
represented,  with  narrowness  and  uncharita- 
bleness,  because  they  left  the  Established 
Church.  His  reply  was  this:  We  do  not  hold 
that  all  members  of  parish  churches  are 
worldly,  or  all  their  ministers  unworthy,  or  all 
their  ceremonials  popish.  We  separate  from 
them  in  order  to  gain  freedom  of  action,  not 
there  permitted;  and  also,  to  form  a  congre- 
gation  composed   only   of   persons   who   have 

161 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

given  their  hearts  to  Christ, — ^which  the  parish 
does  not  provide.  His  words  were:  '^Errors 
imputed  to  us  are:  that  we  hold  none  of  their 
ministers  [Anglicans]  may  be  heard  and  that 
it  is  not  lawful  to  join  in  prayer  with  any  of 
them  "  ( ^ '  Justification, ' '  394 ) .  In  other  words, 
he  contended  that  the  charges  of  bigotry  were 
baseless.  This  shows  with  what  gracious 
catholicity  he  held  the  doctrine  of  Separation 
even  at  that  date. 

Four  years  later,  Eobinson  issued  a  small 
volume:  ^^Of  Eeligious  Communion''  (3614), 
which  grew  out  of  personal  controversies  and 
church  troubles  at  this  point.  Its  pages  reveal 
a  broader  view  respecting  attendance  upoii 
Anglican  services.  He  was  no  less  a  Sepa- 
ratist, but  he  saw  less  harm  in  association  with 
English  parish  churches.  He  now  more  clearly 
recognized  the  reality  of  their  piety,  if  not 
their  fidelity  to  New  Testament  teaching  re- 
specting the  constitution  of  the  Church.  It 
must  be  noted  here  that  he  always  maintained 
the  most  friendly  relations  with  the  Dutch, 
Swiss,  and  French  Protestant  Churches. 

In  this  connection,  we  must  note  that  his 
practices  exemplified  his  teachings.  The  Eng- 
lish Separatist  Church  at  Amsterdam  expelled 
a  member  for  attending  an  Anglican  Church 
when  visiting  in  London.  Eobinson  expressed 
himself  as  ''deeply  shocked  and  grieved''  over 
this  intolerant  act.     He  secured  the  approval 

162 


The  Contribution  of  America 

of  his  own  church  in  favor  of  his  wider  view. 
At  the  same  time,  he  nobly  showed  his  breadth 
in  maintaining  friendly  relations  with  the 
erring  church  whose  action  he  had  disapproved. 
He  took  the  same  position  respecting  a  London 
Independent  Church  which  disciplined  a  mem- 
ber for  the  same  offense. 

Then,  ten  years  later,  just  before  his  death, 
Robinson  wrote  another  book:  **A  Treatise  of 
the  Lawfulness  of  Hearing  of  the  Ministers  of 
the  Church  of  England, '^ — ^which  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1634.  There  are  no  radical  changes 
of  view  here.  The  spirit  is  still  broader  and  a 
more  friendly  attitude  is  taken  toward  the 
matter  in  dispute,  but  he  is  still  a  loyal  Sep- 
aratist. He  reaffirmed  his  allegiance  in  these 
words:  *^I  cannot  communicate  A\ith  or  submit 
unto  the  said  church  order  and  ordinances 
there  established,  either  in  state  or  act,  with- 
out being  condemned  of  mine  own  heart.'' 
These  facts  show  that  he  was  a  man  of  catholic 
spirit  who  grew  broader  as  he  advanced  in 
years,  but  always  a  loyal  Independent :  not  only 
a  remarkable  thinker  but  a  sweet-tempered 
saint. 

In  this  connection,  we  find  an  explanation  of 
an  incident  that  has  troubled  some  admirers  of 
John  Robinson.  When  the  agents  of  the  Pil- 
grims went  to  London  and  sought  the  permis- 
sion and  protection  of  the  English  government 

163 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

for  their  American  venture,  he  advised,  not 
only  an  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of 
the  king,  but  also  of  bishops.  In  the  Fifth  of 
the  Seven  Articles  sent  by  Eobinson  and 
Brewster  to  London  in  order  to  secure  the 
favorable  consideration  of  the  government, 
they  used  this  language :  *  ^  The  authority  of  the 
present  bishops  in  the  land  we  do  acknowledge, 
so  far  as  the  same  is  indeed  derived  from  his 
Majesty  unto  them/'  A  qualification  which 
points  to  a  civil  authority  bestowed  by  the  king 
as  civil  Ruler!  But  later  in  the  same  document 
they  asserted  plainly  their  devotion  to  the 
Congregational  Way,  claiming  the  right  to 
choose  or  dismiss  their  own  ministers. 

Some  have  felt  that  this  meant  weakness,  if 
not  duplicity.  The  action  simply  showed  prac- 
tical common  sense:  here  is  where  a  narrow 
fanatic  would  have  wrecked  the  enterprise. 
They  were  Englishmen  and  they  needed  the 
protection  of  English  Law,  and  they  had  to 
take  the  government  of  Great  Britain  as  it 
was, — not  as  they  might  wish  it  to  be.  They 
did  not  believe  in  a  State  Church,  but  they 
had  to  admit  the  fact  that  bishops  were  state 
officials.  Their  situation  was  similar  to  that  of 
Dissenters  today,  who  protest  against  the 
union  of  Church  and  State,  but  meanwhile 
render  obedience  to  the  Established  Church  in 
certain  matters.    The  Pilgrims  would  not  turn 

164 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Anglicans,  but  they  wisely  agreed  to  respect 
the  episcopal  authority,  whether  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical is  somewhat  uncertain. 

The  famous  sentence  from  Robinson's  Fare- 
well Address ;  *  *  The  Lord  had  more  truth  and 
light  yet  to  breake  forth  out  of  his  holy  Word'' 
(so  given  by  Winslow  in  Hypocrisie  Unmasked, 
1646,  97),  expresses  the  fundamental  spirit  of 
Robinson.  While  a  stout  Calvinist  in  some 
respects,  his  was  a  forward  looking  mind  ex- 
pectant of  farther  religious  progress.  The 
contention  of  Dr.  Dexter  (**  Congregational- 
ism," 404-410)  that  this  language  refers  solely 
to  church  ** polity"  rather  than  to  theological 
doctrines,  is  not  supported  by  the  facts.  In 
this  connection,  Winslow  represents  him  as 
complaining  that  **  Lutherans  .  .  .  could  not 
be  drawne  to  goe  beyond  what  Luther  saw  .  .  . 
and  Calvinists  .  .  .  stick  where  he  left  them: 
a  misery  much  to  be  lamented." 

Robinson  could  here  have  had  in  mind  only 
the  general  positions  of  these  Reformers, 
which  were  theological.  In  fact,  Luther  never 
paid  any  special  attention  to  ^* polity,"  and  to 
Calvinists  in  those  days,  it  was  not  a  vital 
issue.  So  that  it  is  clear  that  the  only  matters 
to  which  Robinson  could  have  made  reference 
when  speaking  as  he  did,  were  their  general 
religious  teachings.  In  view  of  these  state- 
ments which  follow  it,  it  is  absurd  to  limit  the 
sentence  to  so  narrow  and  unnatural  a  mean- 

165 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ing  as  that  claimed  for  these  words  by  Dr. 
Dexter.  It  was  surely  brave  and  notable  for 
Robinson  to  nse  such  language  at  that  time. 
This  fact  increases  the  world's  admiration  of 
him  as  a  man  with  remarkable  clearness  of 
vision  and  breadth  of  feeling. 

And  yet,  this  statement  represented  no  new 
position  on  the  part  of  Eobinson,  as  any  stu- 
dent of  his  work  easily  discovers.  Moreover, 
an  expectation  of  progress,  as  wide  as  that  here 
claimed  for  his  words,  is  found  in  the  very 
phrase  of  the  Pilgrim  Covenant:  *^made  known 
or  to  he  made  known  to  us,'' — precisely  the 
same  idea;  for  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  can- 
not be  narrowed  simply  to  matters  of  polity! 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  such  a  saintly 
spirit, — ^wise,  clear,  sagacious,  tolerant, — that 
the  Pilgrims  were  trained  in  Holland.  It  was 
this  spirit,  organized  in  a  small  but  remarkable 
band,  with  leaders  like  Bradford,  Brewster, 
Carver,  and  Winslow,  that  the  Mayflower 
brought  to  America.  It  was  out  of  such  souls, 
that  had  rediscovered  original  Christianity 
and  had  learned  the  secret  of  Jesus  and  had 
come  to  see  the  necessity  for  a  separation  of 
Church  and  State  for  the  good  of  both,  that  the 
Pilgrim  Glory  sprang. 


166 


The  Contribution  of  America 

n 

During  the  reign  of  James  I.  and  after,  the 
spirit  of  adventure  moved  many  Englishmen  to 
make  settlements  in  North  America.  In  this 
same  period  other  Englishmen,  plain,  sturdy, 
earnest  folk,  kept  demanding  that  the  Church 
be  purified;  but  these  Puritans  expected  to 
accomplish  their  purpose  by  law.  The  little 
band  in  Leiden  under  Eobinson  cherished  an- 
other ideal:  they  sought  a  more  spiritual 
reformation  than  any  undertaken  by  either 
Puritan  or  Presbyter.  They  had  a  wonderful 
vision,  crea,ted  by  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and 
the  practices  of  early  Christians.  To  liberate 
the  Church  from  its  evils  and  stop  the  Martyr- 
dom of  Man,  the  followers  of  Christ  must 
separate  themselves  by  covenant  from  the 
world.  The  local  church,  so  organized,  must 
be  independent  of  magistrate  and  bishop,  free 
to  grow  as  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  directed. 

AVhen  the  settlement  was  made  at  Plymouth, 
the  test  came  at  this  point:  Would  these  Sep- 
aratists remain  true  to  their  ideal?  Would 
they  be  able  to  demonstrate  the  superiority  of 
their  conception  of  the  Church?  Would  the 
great  results  felaimed  actually  follow  their  ex- 
periment? Several  important  facts  must  be 
remembered:  (1)  There  is  no  ground  for  the 
charge  of  inconsistency:  that  they  sought  a 
religious  freedom  for  themselves  which  they 

167 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

refused  to  grant  others.  They  did  not  come  to 
America  to  establish  a  refuge  for  believers  in 
all  sorts  of  creeds  but  to  escape  persecution. 
They  are  not  to  be  condemned  because  they 
never  urged  people  of  alien  faith  to  settle  in 
their  midst.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation 
forbade  this :  such  a  course  would  have  meant 
discord  and  harm  to  all  concerned. 

(2)  They  were  a  small  company  (only  about 
300  as  late  as  1630)  with  three  distinct  func- 
tions :  a  church  estate,  a  commercial  enterprise, 
a  civil  state  created  by  the  Mayflower  compact. 
In  such  a  limited  and  experimental  community, 
it  would  not  be  possible  always  to  keep  these 
functions  distinct  and  separate.  Civil  and 
church  interests  and  policies  would  necessarily 
at  times  overlap  and  intermingle. 

(3)  Worldly  elements  were  present  from  the 
first  and  gave  rise  to  evils  for  which  the  Pil- 
grims themselves  must  not  be  held  responsible. 
Moreover,  as  the  years  passed  and  people  with 
no  interest  in  their  ideals  flowed  into  the  town, 
while  their  own  leaders  died,  changes  would 
occur  which  would  divert  the  life  of  the  com- 
munity, more  or  less,  from  the  original  intent. 
Therefore,  we  must  not  hold  Carver  and  Wins- 
low,  Brewster  and  Bradford,  responsible  for 
mistakes  committed  a  generation  after  the 
Landing. 

The  adventure  at  Plymouth  was  not  the 
greatest  event  in  modern  history,  but  the  spirit 

168 


The  Contribution  of  America 

there  at  work  ^^  served  to  mark  our  modern 
era/'  The  faith  in  civil  and  religious  freedom 
there  exemplified  has  been  a  creative  force  in 
modern  history;  the  noble  success  there 
achieved  has  shaped  our  national  life;  and 
through  our  Nation,  it  has  enriched  the  whole 
earth.  It  was  the  first  settlement  on  this  con- 
tinent dominated  by  great  civic  and  religious 
ideals.  It  made  the  first  planting  in  American 
soil  of  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty. It  was  the  first  community  in  the  world 
actually  to  incorporate  the  principle  of  the 
separation  of  Church  and  State,  now  so  widely 
accepted,  from  which  great  and  innumerable 
blessings  have  flowed. 

The  leaders  of  the  Pilgrims  were  loyal  to 
their  ideal  as  long  as  they  lived :  ' '  The  libera- 
tion of  religion  from  sectarian,  priestly  and 
political  control;  the  elimination  of  the  mob  of 
worldliness  in  religion  and  the  swarm  of  medi- 
ators between  God  and  man;  the  practical 
abolition  of  monopoly  and  privilege  in 
religion''  (William  E.  Griffis). 

The  early  history  of  Plymouth  supports  this 
statement.  Even  Cotton  Mather  significantly 
wrote:  *^That  rigid  thing  they  call  Brownism 
has  prevailed  sometimes  a  little  of  the  furthest 
in  the  administration  of  this  pious  people" 
(Magnalia,  I.,  59).  The  Pilgrim  Church  wel- 
comed the  members  of  French,  Dutch  and 
Scotch  churches,  ^^  merely  by  virtue  of  their 

169 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

being  so.''  Although  stout  Separatists,  two 
Anglican  clergymen,  sent  from  England,  were 
kindly  treated  (a  very  remarkable  display  of 
liberality  for  that  age),  until  one  (Lyford)  was 
discovered  to  be  a  scamp,  and  the  other 
(Rogers)  showed  himself  to  be  *^ disordered  in 
brain.''  "While  the  leaders  disapproved  of 
some  of  the  extreme  views  and  irritating  spirit 
of  the  brilliant  but  erratic  Eoger  Williams, 
they  listened  to  his  preaching  for  many  months, 
and  remained  friendly  to  him  during  all  his 
troubles  with  Massachusetts  Colony.  They 
were  *^  sufficiently  liberal  to  tolerate  illiber- 
ality"!  (Goodwin,  Pilgrim  Eepublic,  349).  A 
democratic  spirit  was  impressively  shown  by 
the  fact  that  all  the  men  signed  the  ^* Compact" 
in  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower;  and  citizenship 
was  never  limited  to  church  membership. 

John  Cotton  (great-grandson  of  the  famous 
Boston  divine — his  own  grandfather  had  been 
minister  of  the  Pilgrim  Church)  wrote,  when 
a  member  of  the  Church  in  1760 — ^he  was  after- 
wards pastor  at  the  neighboring  town  of  Hali- 
fax— a  very  interesting  account  of  the  *  *  Church 
of  Christ  in  Plymouth."  In  it  he  states :  *^The 
provocation  of  the  Quakers"  (about  1656)  was 
very  great,  as  they  **much  infested  the  coun- 
try" by  their  unseemly  and  disorderly  conduct, 
nevertheless  no  capital  laws  were  enacted 
against  them,  and  in  the  excitement  only  one 
family  was   lost   to   the    Church    (Church    of 

170 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Christ  in  Plymouth,  121) !  However,  about 
this  time  laws  against  Quakers  were  passed, 
but  the  punishments  were  mild  for  that  age,  in- 
flicted more  to  preserve  public  decorum  than  to 
punish  people  for  erroneous  religious  opinions, 
and  even  these  laws  were  opposed  by  Isaac 
Robinson  (son  of  the  Leiden  Pastor)  and 
others,  who  represented  the  sentiments  of  the 
Founders:  They  were  enacted  by  *Hhe  unruly 
elements,"  who  had  flowed  in  from  abroad  and 
had  lowered  the  tone  of  the  community. 

New  conditions,  brought  about  by  these 
lower  elements  and  the  inevitable  deterioration 
due  to  their  privations,  led,  during  the  second 
generation,  to  a  few  petty  ecclesiastical  dis- 
orders and  disciplines.  For  instance:  in  1651, 
John  Rogers  of  Marshfield  was  fined  5  shillings 
for  * '  villif ying  the  ministry. ' '  The  same  year, 
Arthur  Howland  was  admonished  for  non- 
attendance  at  church;  in  1669,  he  was  arrested 
for  neglecting  to  pay  his  church-tax, — as  re- 
quired by  an  Act  of  1658, — ^which  Dr.  Matthew 
Fuller,  son  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Samuel  Fuller, 
called  ^^a  wicked  and  devilish  law," — showing 
that  he  was  as  stout  a  Separatist  as  his  father ! 
Later,  1670,  Robert  Harper  was  whipped  for 
reviling  pastor  Walley  of  Barnstable.  But 
such  cases  were  infrequent;  and  they  had  ref- 
erence to  misconduct  rather  than  to  heresy  or 
unbelief. 

171 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Long  before  (1645),  an  event  occurred  in 
the  House  of  Delegates  of  the  Colony,  which 
showed  the  catholic  temper  of  the  people.  The 
following  Act  was  introduced  and  favored  by 
a  majority  of  its  members:  **To  allow  and 
maintain  full  and  free  toleration  to  all  men 
that  would  preserve  the  civil  peace  and  submit 
unto  the  government;  and  there  was  no  limita- 
tion or  exception  against  Turk,  Jew,  Papist, 
Arian,  Socinian,  Mcolaitan,  Familist  or  any 
other. '^  A  very  remarkable  proposition. 
Governor  Bradford  refused  to  put  the  motion, 
and  his  motive  was  probably  not  so  much  his 
objection  to  this  catholicity,  but  his  realization 
that  such  a  course  was  not  only  unnecessary, 
but  that  it  would  do  more  harm  than  good, 
both  by  arousing  suspicions  against  them  in 
England,  and  also  by  serving  to  invite  lawless 
and  undesirable  elements  into  the  Colony. 
But  the  incident  itself  is  very  significant  and 
stands  as  an  impressive  testimony  to  their 
liberality. 

A  striking  illustration  of  religious  catho- 
licity is  the  fact  that  the  Plymouth  Church  in 
1641  voted  to  permit  Charles  Chauncy  (later 
president  of  Harvard  College),  whom  they 
desired  to  settle  as  their  minister,  to  use  im- 
mersion as  the  form  of  baptism,  which  was  not 
only  contrary  to  the  usual  custom,  but  which 
would    have    subjected    them    to    the    serious 

172 


The  Contribution  of  America 

charge  of  being  Anabaptists  (Cotton,  Churcli 
of  Christ  in  Plymouth:  Mass.  Hi^t.  Coll.  First 
Series,  IV.,  112). 

The  first  Act  for  the  punishment  of  heresy, 
so-called,  is  found  in  the  General  Laws  of  New 
Plymouth,  published  in  1671.  The  contention 
of  Benjamin  Scott  that  the  original  Pilgrims 
themselves  never  indulged  in  persecution  is 
fully  supported  by  the  facts  (Pilgrim  Fathers, 
1866). 

The  influence  of  the  Pilgrims  upon  the  re- 
ligious life  of  New  England  was  deep,  wide, 
and  continuous.  In  a  little  over  a  hundred 
years,  people  went  out  from  Plymouth  and 
established  seven  other  churches  of  the  same 
broad  spirit,  one  of  the  most  notable  of  which 
was  that  at  Scituate.  While  conditions  at 
Plymouth  were  soon  somewhat  changed  by  the 
influx  of  alien  elements,  the  Pilgrim  spirit 
continued  to  make  itself  felt  throughout  the 
land.  It  held  in  check  the  Presbyterian  influ- 
ence, which,  for  a  time,  threatened  the  inde- 
pendency of  the  Massachusetts  churches  and 
which  did  arrest  the  free  development  of  the 
Connecticut  churches.  In  cooperation  with 
other  forces,  it  finally  brought  the  religious  life 
of  the  eastern  colonies  very  largely  to  its  way 
of  thinking  about  Church  and  State.  While  the 
intercourse  southward  was  slight  in  those  days, 
nevertheless,  wherever  Plymouth  people  went 
and  wherever  Plymouth  history  became  known, 

173 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

the  Pilgrim  example  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion :  The  unusual  and  beneficent  results  of  this 
experiment  in  freedom  were  seen  to  be  so  good 
that  men  took  note  of  them  and  were  moved  to 
walk  in  the  same  ways. 

But  the  most  notable  example  of  this  influ- 
ence was  seen  at  the  settlement  of  Salem 
(1629),  which  was  for  many  years  a  more  im- 
portant town,  in  various  ways,  than  Boston. 
When  the  Puritans,  who  settled  at  Salem,  left 
England,  they  declared;  *^We  do  not  go  to 
New  England  as  Separatists  from  the  Church 
of  England,'' — obviously  a  thrust  at  the  Pil- 
grims! Now,  it  so  happened  that  soon  after 
their  landing  in  the  new  world,  their  leader, 
John  Endicott,  fell  sick,  and  Dr.  Fuller,  deacon 
in  the  Plymouth  Church,  was  sent  for  to  treat 
him.  So  convincingly  did  the  good  doctor 
expound  the  Pilgrim  Ideal  during  his  visit, 
that  Endicott  wrote  to  Bradford  (May  21, 
1629) :  ^^I  rejoice  much  that  I  am  by  him  sat- 
isfied touching  your  judgment  of  the  outward 
form  of  God's  worship," — referring,  not  to  the 
order  of  Sunday  services,  but  to  their  church 
polity.  The  example  of  Plymouth,  now  that 
they  breathed  ^Hhe  air  of  the  free  wilderness," 
made  these  Puritans  Separatists :  an  inevitable 
result  which  Eobinson  had  predicted.  And  by 
making  such  a  prediction,  Eobinson  showed 
how  loyal  he  was  to  the  last  to  both  the  spirit 
of  progress  and  to  the  Separatist  Ideal.    This 

174 


The  Contribution  of  America 

incident,  the  implications  of  which  have  not 
been  sufficiently  appreciated,  is  complete  refu- 
tation of  those  who  have  asserted  that  he  was 
neither  a  liberal  nor  a  Separatist. 

Thus  it  came  about  that,  in  organizing  their 
church,  the  Salem  folk  sought  the  assistance 
of  the  Pilgrims.  A  Covenant  was  adopted 
almost  exactly  like  that  of  the  Scrooby-Leiden- 
Plymouth  Church.  Although  their  leaders, 
Francis  Higginson  (teacher  or  minister)  and 
Samuel  Skelton  (pastor)  had  been  ordained  as 
Anglicans  in  England,  they  were  inducted  into 
their  new  offices  according  to  the  simple  but  im- 
pressive service  used  by  Separatist  churches: 
the  first  exposition  and  exhibition  of  Inde- 
pendency in  America. 

This  was  a  notable  and  influential  event.  It 
marked  the  first  triumph  of  the  Pilgrim  Ideal 
in  America  and  the  opening  of  a  new  era.  The 
whole  religious  history  of  New  England  (to 
say  nothing  of  the  civic  history  of  our  Nation) 
would  have  been  radically  different  had  Salem 
adopted  Anglican  or  Presbyterian  forms.  In- 
stead, by  keeping  the  door  of  freedom  open, 
Salem  became  a  leader  in  the  cause  of  religious 
liberty  and  carried  Essex  County  in  the  same 
direction,  going  far  ahead  of  Boston  in  matters 
of  civil  and  religious  progress. 

What  happened  in  Salem  also  occurred  in 
other  places, — notably  in  the  organization  of 
the   churches    in    Charlestown   and   Mattapan 

175 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(Dorchester) :  the  influence  of  Plymouth  was 
deeply  felt.  Writing  in  1644,  Eathband  stated 
that  he  had  been  informed  ^  ^  that  the  rest  of  the 
Churches  in  New  England  came  at  first  to  them 
at  Plimmoth  to  crave  their  direction  in  Church 
courses,  and  made  them  their  pattern '*  ( Brief e 
Narration).  This  is  probably  an  exaggeration, 
but  the  general  statement  is  supported  by  many 
facts. 

Sir  Thomas  Hutchinson,  the  last  Tory  Gov- 
ernor of  Massachusetts,  a  historian  of  wide 
knowledge  who  certainly  was  not  prejudiced  in 
favor  of  Plymouth,  wrote,  in  1767:  *^The  set- 
tlement of  this  colony  [Plymouth]  occasioned 
the  settlement  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  which 
was  the  source  of  all  the  other  colonies  in  New 
England.  Virginia  was  in  a  dying  state,  and 
seemed  to  revive  and  flourish  from  the  example 
of  New  England/^  The  Plymouth  settlement 
represents  the  critical  turning  point  in  the 
history  of  British  Colonization  in  America. 
And  in  more  important  directions  than  mere 
material  successes.  But  even  here,  the  civic 
orderliness,  the  resolute  thrift,  the  unfaltering 
fortitude  in  face  of  severe  hardships,  these 
qualities  made  a  profound  impression  up  and 
down  the  Atlantic  Coast.  And  they  remained 
a  people  of  distinction  long  after  the  Colony 
was  incorporated  with  Massachusetts  in  1692. 

It  is,  however,  to  other  qualities  that  we  look 
for  their  supreme  contributions  to  American 

176 


The  Contribution  of  America 

life.  In  those  beginning  days,  the  moral 
earnestness  of  the  Pilgrims  deeply  impressed 
itself  upon  the  life  of  the  new  world.  Their 
high  social  and  political  virtues, — sanity, 
sobriety,  self-discipline, — ^which  meant  political 
and  domestic  peace,  exerted  a  powerful  influ- 
ence far  and  wide.  Their  religious  devotion 
and  liberality  presented  a  noble  example  to 
which  people  everywhere  gave  heed.  As 
Morton  Dexter  has  well  written:  They  exer- 
cised an  ^  influence  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
smallness  of  their  Colony**  (Story  of  the  Pil- 
grims, 327).  They  were  not  rich  in  worldly 
goods,  but  they  enriched  our  land  with  spiritual 
treasures  whose  glory  brightens  as  the  years 
pass. 

Ill 

The  statement  is  often  made  that  the  Con- 
gregational was  the  *' Established  Church**  of 
the  old  ^^Bay  Colony.**  This  was  in  one  sense 
true,  but  in  another  and  larger  sense  it  was  not 
true.  True,  in  so  far  that  the  General  Court 
of  Massachusetts  did  in  a  few  instances  inter- 
fere in  the  local  affairs  of  a  particular  church, 
as  in  the  case  of  Salem  (1631),  giving  warning 
against  Roger  Williams.  True,  in  so  far  that 
many  churches  were  (until  1833)  supported  by 
town  taxes.  True,  in  so  far  that  citizenship 
was  for   a  time   limited  to   church   members 

177 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(1631-1662).  True,  in  so  far  that  in  certain 
cases,  the  General  Court  did  pass  laws  against 
a  few  religious  practices:  publicly  to  condemn 
infant  baptism  was  made  a  crime  (1644)  pun- 
ishable by  banishment.  A  clear  distinction, 
however,  was,  from  the  first,  drawn  between  the 
rights  of  the  civil  authorities  and  the  rights  of 
the  churches.  The  civil  power  never  yielded 
to  the  ecclesiastical.  And  although  the  churches 
were  jealous  of  their  independence,  they 
admitted  the  superiority  of  the  magistrate  in 
all  matters  pertaining  to  temporal  government. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  never  was  an 
^^Established  Church' '  in  Massachusetts  in  the 
strictest  sense.  That  would  have  been  con- 
trary to  both  the  political  and  the  religious 
ideals  of  the  people.  Its  churches  were  not 
colonial  but  town  institutions.  They  were  pro- 
tected by  the  government  but  not  managed  by 
the  government.  The  General  Court,  for  in- 
stance, authorized  the  formation  of  a  new 
church  in  a  town;  but  in  doing  this  it  steadily 
refused  to  act  **  without  the  approval  of  a  great 
part  of  the  churches''  (Law  of  1636).  How- 
ever, the  people  in  forming  a  new  church,  for- 
mulated its  creed  or  covenant,  elected  and  in- 
stalled its  minister  and  other  officers,  and 
conducted  its  affairs  as  an  absolutely  inde- 
pendent organization.  In  no  case  did  the 
General  Court  ever  veto  the  action  of  a  church 
in  calling  a  minister.     The  ministers  of  these 

178 


The  Contribution  of  America 

churches  had  no  special  civic  status.  The  func- 
tions which  they  exercised  were  purely  re- 
ligious and  educational,  conferred  by  the  local 
congregation  and  exercised  only  so  long  as 
they  held  that  particular  office.  The  church 
could  at  any  time  dismiss  its  minister,  who 
then  ceased  to  be  a  minister  and  became  a  lay- 
man. He  held  no  authority  from  the  Colony; 
his  ordination  conferred  no  life  privileges ;  his 
clerical  functions  ceased  when  he  closed  his 
service  as  pastor  of  a  particular  church.  If  he 
settled  as  minister  over  another  church,  he  was 
reinstalled. 

The  ministers  of  Massachusetts  exercised  an 
extraordinary  influence  for  nearly  two  hun- 
dred years.  But  this  was  due  to  public  senti- 
ment and  personal  worth:  not  to  theocratic 
privilege  or  official  station.  During  the  first 
generation,  there  were  a  dozen  men  of  very 
large  ability,  in  a  population  of  some  15,000 
people,  who  occupied  its  prominent  pulpits — 
nearly  all  graduates  of  Cambridge  University ; 
and  Cotton  Mather  stated  (Magnalia,  I.,  79) 
that,  about  1700,  nine  out  of  ten  of  its  ministers 
were  graduates  of  Harvard  College. 

We  must  also  remember  that  the  religious 
life  of  the  Colony  for  some  years,  while  Con- 
gregational with  few  exceptions,  was  not  all  of 
one  piece:  There  was  considerable  diversity 
along  several  lines,  disproving  the  existence  of 
anything  like  an  *^ Established  Church.''    The 

179 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

town  churches  differed  very  much  in  their 
covenants :  the  First  Parish  at  Hingham  never 
seems  to  have  had  either  creed  or  covenant. 
There  were  great  differences  respecting 
*^ Elders.'^  While  a  majority  of  the  towns 
supported  their  churches  by  public  taxation, 
nevertheless  the  system  of  voluntary  support 
was  followed  in  many  cases,  especially  in  the 
early  days.  This  was  the  rule  in  Boston  from 
the  first  and  it  was  never  abandoned.  It 
was  the  early  practice  at  Salem,  and  it  was 
followed  at  Watertown  until  1642.  That  great 
leader,  John  Cotton,  forcibly  argued  for  the 
voluntary  system,  contending  that  when 
abandoned  the  churches  declined.  This  was 
the  policy  at  Plymouth  until  after  1657. 

There  was,  therefore,  in  a  way,  during  the 
early  days  in  Massachusetts ,  a  union  of 
Church  and  State;  but  it  was  an  arrangement 
which  permitted  local  initiative,  granted  a 
large  degree  of  individual  liberty,  and  fostered 
a  powerful  democratic  impulse.  And  it  must 
always  be  remembered,  what  is  so  often  for- 
gotten, that  Boston,  Salem  and  the  neighboring 
towns  did  not  constitute  an  independent  com- 
monwealth. In  the  aggregate  they  were  little 
more  than  plantations  on  the  way  to  a  colony; 
a  population  slowly  growing  toward  a  State. 
These  communities  were  under  English  laws, 
which  they  must  respect  but  could  not  revise. 
Their  civil  and  judicial  privileges  were  limited 

180 


The  Contribution  of  America 

and  subject  to  review.  A  jealous  British  king 
and  Parliament  exercised  authority  over  them, 
while  enemies  in  England,  especially  the 
Ecclesiastics,  were  on  the  watch  to  take  advan- 
tage of  any  mistakes  committed.  Whatever 
theocratic  spirit  existed, — and  at  times  it  was 
strong  and  perverse, — it  was  not  so  much 
organized  as  a  government  policy,  but  it 
operated  more  as  a  religious  sentiment  through 
some,  but  not  all,  ministers. 

Moreover,  these  towns  were,  for  a  genera- 
tion, little  more  than  experimental  settlements 
whose  chief  purpose  was  industrial  and  com- 
mercial, and  they  received  their  grants  of  land 
and  privileges  through  a  London  Company 
which  was  a  purely  business  enterprise.  For 
years,  the  so-called  ^^  General  Court '^  was  not 
an  independent  civic  institution  with  sovereign 
political  functions.  It  was  the  agent  of  a  Cor- 
poration in  England,  whose  interests  it  must 
serve  and  whose  commands  it  must  obey.  Also, 
the  towns  themselves  were  largely  private 
companies  with  rights  and  duties  analagous  to 
modern  clubs  or  business  corporations.  As 
such  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  admit  or  ex- 
clude people,  and  to  make  regulations  respect- 
ing franchise,  property,  conduct  or  faith. 
Those  early  settlers  must  not  be  judged  as 
though  they  formed  a  complete  and  inde- 
pendent political  organization.  Their  rules 
and  policies  were  of  a  more  private  and  limited 

181 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

character.  If  they  excluded  Quakers,  they 
acted  very  much  as  the  Lodge  which  should 
today  blackball  a  Negro,  or  a  Corporation 
which  should  refuse  to  sell  its  stock  to  farmers : 
acts  to  be  criticised  but  not  crimes  against 
human  liberty. 


IV 

This  truth  finds  clear  illustration  in  the 
attitude  taken  toward  the  Founder  of  Rhode 
Island:  a  loveable,  brilliant,  erratic,  disputa- 
tious man,  of  whom  it  is  impossible  to  write 
without  admiration,  and  yet,  of  whose  char- 
acter it  is  difficult  to  make  a  just  estimate. 
Williams  was  born  about  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  (died  1683) ;  educated  at 
Cambridge  University;  ordained  as  an  Angli- 
can clergyman;  became  a  Separatist  at  the 
age  of  about  30;  landed  in  Massachusetts  in 
February,  1631;  refused  to  fill  the  pulpit  of 
John  Wilson,  at  the  First  Church  in  Bos- 
ton, because  **an  unseparated  people.'*  He 
preached  at  Salem  for  a  short  period  (1631) 
and  at  Plymouth  for  a  longer  time  (1631-1633). 
Then  came  his  banishment  from  Massachusetts 
(1635), — after  a  second  and  longer  term  of 
service  at  Salem.  His  final  settlement  where 
Providence  is  now  located  soon  followed.  He 
made  two  visits  of  considerable  length  to 
England   (one  in  1643;   another  in  1651,  re- 

182 


The  Contribution  of  America 

maining  nearly  three  years),  in  both  of  which 
he  was  representing  the  interests  of  the  people 
settled  about  Narragansett  Bay  and  seeking 
charters  for  their  protection. 

Williams  had  a  noble  but  vexa,tious  spirit; 
a  mind  with  a  narrow  range  that  saw  certain 
truths  with  great  clearness.  He  exaggerated 
trifles  and  was  passionately  fond  of  petty  con- 
troversy. In  matters  of  religion,  he  was  often 
narrow  and  intolerant;  but  in  respect  to  the 
attitude  of  the  State  to  religion,  he  was  broad 
and  tolerant.  A  man  who  won  the  esteem  of 
Winthrop  and  Bradford  and  was  honored  by 
the  friendship  of  Vane,  Milton,  and  Cromwell, 
must,  indeed,  have  been  a  remarkable  character 
with  many  estimable  qualities. 

And  yet,  there  is  warrant  for  calling  him, 
especially  in  his  early  life,  a  *^  pestiferous 
person 'M  Many  of  his  actions  and  arguments 
in  Salem  and  Boston  show  a  petty  spirit  and  a 
perverse  mind.  It  was  very  narrow  in  him  to 
turn  his  back  upon  the  First  Church  because 
some  of  its  members  attended  Anglican 
services  when  in  London :  that  was  Separatism 
gone  mad.  A  position  so  much  narrower  than 
that  of  Robinson.  It  was  certainly  unmanly 
to  break  his  pledge  of  silence  to  the  General 
Court  (1635) — ^which  had  graciously  granted 
him  permission  to  remain  at  Salem  during  the 
winter — ^by  indulging  in  acrid  controversy  and 
bitter  denunciation.    His  refusal  to  permit  his 

183 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

wife  to  participate  in  family  worship,  because 
she  continued  to  attend  the  Salem  church  after 
he  had  left  it, — such  conduct  reveals  an  extreme 
perversity  of  mind.  He  suffered,  especially  in 
his  younger  days,  from  an  over-refinement  of 
logic. 

It  is  almost  incomprehensible  why  a  man  of 
his  intelligence  should  leave  the  Providence 
Baptist  Church  (the  first  organized  in  America, 
1639),  which  he  had  helped  to  found,  on  the 
ground  that  his  baptism  was  invalid,  no  one 
having  apostolic  authority  to  perform  the  rite. 
He  waited  to  the  end  for  some  special  mes- 
senger to  be  sent  of  God  for  this  purpose !  His 
objections  against  administering  an  oath  to 
unregenerate  persons  and  against  the  then 
current  practice  of  addressing  men  by  the 
given  name  with  the  title  ^^ Goodman''  prefixed 
(as  Goodman  William  when  speaking  to  Gov- 
ernor Bradford)  reveal  an  almost  incredible 
pettiness  of  mind.  He  contended  that  the 
magistrate  had  no  right  to  punish  Quakers, 
whom  he  was  glad  to  welcome  to  Providence 
and  Rhode  Island,  though  he  disapproved  of 
many  of  their  doctrines  and  actions.  However 
his  treatment  of  George  Fox  showed  not  only 
a  narrow  intolerance,  but  great  unfairness. 
The  pages  of  his  ^^ George  Fox  Digged  Out 
of  his  Burrowes''  (1676)  are  not  pleasant 
reading. 

The  Boston  people  very  naturally  began  to 
184 


The  Contribution  of  America 

dislike  Roger  Williams  when  lie  bitterly 
refused  to  be  their  minister,  because  theirs  was 
an  ^^unseparated  church/'  In  this,  he  was 
narrow,  and  they  were  broad.  At  this  time,  he 
was  not  an  advocate  of  **  soul-liberty, ' '  but  a 
young  man,  crude  in  judgment  and  irritating 
in  temper.  Eoger  Williams  as  an  erratic 
young  man  of  thirty  was  as  unlike  the  mature 
governor  of  Rhode  Island,  twenty  years  later, 
as  the  wild  college  student  is  unlike  what  he 
comes  to  be  when  he  takes  office  as  a  solemn 
judge  at  fifty.  His  conduct  for  some  three 
years  at  Salem  and  Plymouth  intensified  their 
dislike;  so  that,  when  he  returned  to  Salem, 
they  warned  the  people  there  against  him  a 
second  time.  But  Salem  paid  no  heed,  and  he 
was  settled  as  successor  to  Mr.  Skelton  (1633). 
Then  began  the  sharp  controversies  which 
led  to  his  banishment.  Certain  facts  must 
here  be  stated.  No  question  of  creed  or  rite 
was  involved,  and  the  trouble  did  not  pri- 
marily hinge  on  the  relation  of  Church  and 
State.  As  the  Colony  was  under  grave  sus- 
picions in  England  at  this  time,  the  Massachu- 
setts people  realized  that  it  would  be  very 
unwise  to  harbor  a  man  who  was  a  firebrand, 
indulging  in  virulent  attacks  upon  the  Anglican 
Church  and  their  English  friends.  The  minor 
positions  of  Williams,  which  aroused  opposi- 
tion, were  these:  That  it  was  unlawful  to 
administer  oaths  to  the  unregenerate ;  that  it 

185 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

was  unlawful  to  attend  Anglican  churches  in 
England;  that  a  Christian  ought  not  to  pray 
with  the  unconverted,  even  though  wife  or 
child!  Such  teachings  showed,  not  only  an 
intolerant  spirit,  but  a  perverse  mind. 

The  main  charge,  however,  against  Williams, 
when  he  was  first  brought  to  trial,  was  his 
contention  that  the  patent  from  the  King  under 
which  the  people  held  their  land  was  null  and 
void :  He  had  no  right  to  it,  not  having  bought  it 
of  the  Indians.  They  should  repent  of  their  sin 
in  taking  possession  of  it  without  paying  the 
Indians ;  and  then  proceed  to  pay  for  it.  There 
was  certainly  an  element  of  nobility  in  this 
contention,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  prac- 
tical politics  at  the  time,  the  proposition  was 
little  less  than  madness.  The  people  realized 
that  to  approve  such  views  would  incur  the 
wrath  of  England  and  wreck  their  enterprise. 
This,  indeed,  was  a  blow  at  the  very  foundation 
of  their  government:  practically  an  act  of 
treason.  Ministers  and  magistrates  showed 
bad  temper  in  the  management  of  the  affair, 
and  religious  passions  were  active;  but  the 
General  Court  was  entirely  justified,  both  in 
law  and  in  ethics,  in  banishing  this  disturber 
of  their  peace.  In  this  connection,  we  must^ 
remember  that  he  was  the  twentieth  person  to 
be  sent  away  in  seven  years ;  and,  on  the  whole, 
with  adequate  justification. 

The    statement   has    often   been   made   that 
186 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Williams  was  driven  into  the  wilderness  at  the 
dead  of  winter,  because  of  his  religious  belief. 
It  would  be  hard  to  make  a  greater  number  of 
more  serious  errors  in  so  short  a  statement. 
As  above  set  forth,  the  main  reason  for  his 
banishment  was  political,  not  religious.  And 
what  especially  aroused  opposition  was  not  so 
much  his  opinions  as  his  turbulent  manner  in 
attacking  others.  He  forced  the  issue  by  his 
acrid  and  dogmatic  spirit.  Sentence  was 
passed  Oct.  9, 1635,  and  he  was  given  six  weeks 
in  which  to  prepare  to  leave.  He  could  have 
sailed  for  England  or  gone  back  to  live  in 
Plymouth.  His  appeal  for  an  extension  of 
time,  on  account  of  personal  and  domestic 
reasons,  was  granted,  on  condition  that  he 
refrain  from  bitter  controversies:  a  very 
humane  indulgence,  as  he  was  permitted  to 
remain  until  the  next  May.  When  he  violated 
these  conditions  and  began  to  stir  up  trouble, 
the  authorities  very  properly  decided  to  ship 
him  to  England,  not  as  a  prisoner  but  as  a  free 
passenger.  When  the  officer  reached  Salem  to 
enforce  this  decision,  early  in  January,  1636, 
he  had  left,  having  gone  to  a  camp,  which  had 
previously  been  prepared  for  him  by  a  few 
friends,  in  the  region  of  Narragansett  Bay. 
Therefore,  the  winter  exile  in  the  wilderness 
was,  in  fact,  his  own  act. 

The  relations  between  Williams  and  Massa- 
chusetts   never    became    cordial,    although    in 

187 


The  Winning\Qf  Religious  Liberty 

times  of  Indian  troubles,  he  showed  a  friendly 
and  magnanimous  spirit  to  the  Colony  that  had 
exiled  him.  But  his  own  statement  of  his 
troubles  with  Boston  ministers  and  magis- 
trates, made  late  in  life,  shows  that  the  wounds 
never  healed,  and  his  assertions,  unfortunately, 
contain  serious  errors,  due  to  failing  memory 
or  personal  feeling.  "WHien  the  four  Colonies, 
Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Hartford,  and  New 
Haven  were  brought  into  a  Union  in  1643, 
Providence  was  not  included:  the  irritation 
had  not  subsided.  But  Williams  lived  on  inti- 
mate terms  with  Plymouth  and  Hartford  to  the 
end  of  his  days. 

Williams  soon  settled  where  Providence  now 
stands,  and  he  became  the  leader  of  the  settle- 
ments about  the  Bay;  and  he  deserves  high 
honors  as  the  Founder  of  Ehode  Island.  He 
visited  England  twice  in  the  interests  of  these 
settlements.  The  second  charter  which  he 
secured  made  religious  freedom  fundamental. 
Although  such  principles  were  not  original 
with  him,  nevertheless  he  deserves  great  credit 
for  basing  the  Colony  on  the  doctrine  of  Soul- 
Liberty.  His  early  disciplines,  the  maturity 
which  comes  with  age,  his  association  with  the 
great  men  of  the  English  Commonwealth, 
developed  in  him  a  breadth,  sagacity,  and 
wisdom,  of  which  his  early  days  gave  no 
intimation. 

As    early   as    1641,    Providence    Plantation, 

188 


The  Contribution  of  America 

under  his  leadership,  declared  for  democracy 
and  liberty  of  conscience.  The  following  pro- 
vision was  incorporated  into  the  Charter  of 
1663:  ^^That  all  and  everye  person  and  persons 
may,  from  tyme  to  tyme,  and  at  all  tymes  here- 
after, freely e  and  fullye,  have  and  enjoye  his 
and  their  owne  judgments  and  consciences,  in 
matters  of  religious  concernments  .  .  .  they 
behaving  themselves  peaceablie  and  quietlie 
and  not  using  their  libertie  to  lycentiousnesse 
and  profanenesse,  nor  to  the  civill  injurye  or 
outward  disturbance  of  others."  The  first 
charter  (of  Providence  Plantation:  1647) 
contained  no  provisions  respecting  religion, 
because  devoted  solely  to  civil  affairs. 

It  has  sometimes  been  asserted  (Armitage, 
History  of  the  Baptists,  649)  that  Ehode 
Island,  under  Williams,  was  the  first  New 
England  colony  to  incorporate  civil  and 
religious  freedom  in  its  organic  law.  But  this 
is  to  forget  that  the  Pilgrims  were  practicing 
these  principles  ten  years  before  Williams 
came  to  Anaerica  and  over  a  score  of  years 
before  such  laws  were  enacted  at  Providence. 
However,  the  liberal  conditions  advocated  by 
him,  first  attracted  Baptists  and  then  Quakers 
to  those  settlements;  and  they  gave  to  Ehode 
Island  a  breadth  of  spirit  along  these  lines 
which  should  always  be  recognized  with  the 
greatest  admiration. 

Shortly  before  the  settlement  of  Boston 
189 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(1630)  three  men,  John  Cotton,  Thomas 
Hooker,  Eoger  Williams  (all  Cambridge  Uni- 
versity men),  took  a  horseback  ride  one  day 
from  Old  Boston,  England,  to  Sempringham, 
eighteen  miles  away.  John  Cotton  (1585-1652) 
was  then  minister  of  an  Anglican  church  in 
Boston,  but  his  Puritan  principles  were  bring- 
ing him  into  trouble.  Thomas  Hooker  (1586- 
1647)  was  teaching  not  far  away  at  Chelms- 
ford, having  John  Eliot  (1604-1690),  the 
Apostle  to  the  Indians,  as  assistant.  The 
serious  topics  of  conversation  on  this  ride 
were  matters  respecting  the  Prayer  Book.  It 
is  a  remarkable  fact  that  these  four  men 
should  have  exerted  such  dominating  influ- 
ences upon  New  England:  Little  did  they  then 
imagine  the  careers  before  them!  Cotton,  the 
ablest  of  the  four,  put  his  impress  more  deeply 
upon  the  New  World  than  any  other  man  of 
his  time.  Williams,  the  most  brilliant  and 
original,  secured  the  most  conspicuous  place  in 
history.  Hooker,  more  of  a  democrat  than 
Cotton  and  less  tolerant  in  state  affairs  than 
Williams,  was  the  author  of  the  constitution  of 
Connecticut,  the  first  elaborate  compact  of  civil 
government  formulated  on  these  shores  (1638). 
During  his  first  visit  in  England,  Williams 
published  (1644)  his  book,  ^^The  Bloudy 
Tenent  of  Persecution,''  which  contains  the 
clearest  exposition  of  his  thought  on  the  sub- 
ject of  religious  freedom.    He  and  Cotton  had, 

190 


The  Contribution  of  America 

several  years  before,  corresponded  respecting 
this  matter,  so  that  his  Boston  antagonist  came 
in  for  extended  criticism  in  this  treatise. 
Williams  contended,  as  at  the  time  of  his  trial, 
that  magistrates  have  no  right  to  punish 
offences  against  God, — disobedience  of  the 
first  five  commandments  of  the  Decalogue.  He 
pleaded  for  absolute  liberty  of  conscience: 
**The  civil  magistrate  owes  two  things  to 
false  worshippers:  (1)  Permission;  (2)  Pro- 
tection'^  (Chapter  CXXV).  Other  luminous 
sentences  are  the  following:  **The  civil  sword 
may  make  a  nation  of  hypocrites  and  anti- 
Christians,  but  not  a  single  Christian. ''  *^The 
civil  Eepublic  and  the  religious  Eepublic  [the 
Church],  not  opposed,  but  independent  of  each 
other," — just  the  position  of  Eobert  Browne. 
**It  is  less  hurtful  to  compel  a  man  to  marry 
somebody  whom  he  does  not  love  than  to  follow 
a  religion  in  which  he  does  not  believe. ' ' 

The  following  statement  (from  the  Preface) 
is  probably  the  broadest  assertion  of  religious 
liberty  made  in  English  up  to  the  date  of  its 
composition:  ** Sixthly:  It  is  the  will  and  com- 
mand of  God,  that  a  permission  of  the  most 
Paganish,  Jewish,  Turkish,  or  Antichristian 
consciences  and  worships  be  granted  to  all  men 
in  all  Nations  and  Countries :  and  they  are  only 
to  be  fought  against  with  that  Sword  which  is 
only  able  to  conquer,  to  wit,  the  Sword  of  God's 
Spirit,  the  Word  of  God,'' — (spelling  modem- 

191 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ized.)  This  is  a  noble  plea  for  universal  relig- 
ions equality. 

But  even  Williams  was  not  able  to  make  his 
Colony  as  broad  as  his  vision.  In  the  first 
printed  Digest  of  the  Laws  of  Ehode  Island 
(1719),  a  Law  is  found,  purporting  to  have 
been  enacted  in  1663  which  granted  citizenship 
only  to  men  professing  Christianity  (Roman 
Catholics  only  excepted).  It  is  uncertain  when 
these  four  words,  excluding  Catholics,  were 
inserted.  What  is  certain  is  that  the  Law  was 
in  force  for  nearly  a  hundred  years  and  not 
repealed  until  1783.  In  1762,  the  two  Jews 
(Lopez  and  Elizur)  who  petitioned  for  citizen- 
ship were  denied  their  civil  rights  by  the 
Superior  Court,  whose  judges  based  their 
decision  upon  the  restriction  of  citizenship  to 
Christians  as  given  in  the  Law  of  1663. 

Cotton  replied  to  Williams  (1647)  in  *'The 
Bloudy  Tenent,  Washed  And  made  white  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb.'*  For  that  age,  while 
sharply  personal,  the  controversy  was  in  good 
temper.  To  this  Williams  made  a  rejoinder. 
However,  neither  gained  a  decisive  victory. 
Cotton  did  not  defend  intolerance,  but  his 
exposition  of  the  liberty  of  conscience  left 
doors  open  for  all  sorts  of  persecutions. 
Nevertheless,  to  the  fair-spirited  modern 
reader,  it  is  clear  that  Cotton's  was,  on  the 
whole,  the  broader  mind, — ^with  the  one  notable 
exception:  the  authority  of  the  magistrate  in 

192 


The  Contribution  of  America 

matters  of  religion.  Williams  saw  with  perfect 
clearness  the  absolute  necessity  for  a  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State,  but  on  other  points 
he  was  often  confused  and  narrow.  This  prin- 
ciple Cotton  did  not  understand,  but  in  various 
directions  he  saw  more  clearly  than  Williams. 


The  religious  life  of  early  New  England  was 
largely  shaped  by  three  men:  Richard  Mather 
(1596-1669)  of  the  First  Parish,  Dorchester; 
John  Cotton  of  the  First  Church,  Boston; 
Thomas  Hooker,  first  at  Newtown  (now  Cam- 
bridge),— 1633-1636, — and  then  went  with  his 
people  to  found  Hartford.  These  men  were 
Puritans,  non-conformists  but  not  Separatists : 
followers  of  Henry  Barrow  rather  than  Eobert 
Browne.  Mather  put  the  most  emphasis  on 
the  Eldership  within  the  local  church  and  he 
was  the  least  democratic.  Hooker  was  the 
most  democratic, — ^he  refused  to  limit  citizen- 
ship to  church  members, — but  he  was  inclined 
to  give  more  authority  to  synods  than  the  other 
two.  Cotton,  who  was  the  most  influential, 
steered  a  middle  course  between  Brownism  and 
Barrowism. 

Mather  had  been  for  some  years  minister  of 
a  church  in  Toxteth  Park — Liverpool — ^which 
had  been  mildly  Anglican,  then  Presbyterian 
with    Independent    leanings,    now    Unitarian. 

193 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

He  published  in  1643  his  book:  ** Church- 
Go  vermnent  and  Church- Covenant''  (written 
in  1639).  Its  most  significant  statement  is 
this :  '  ^  We  give  the  exercise  of  all  church  power 
of  government  .  .  .  neither  all  to  the  people 
excluding  the  presbytery  [the  elders],  nor  all 
to  the  presbytery  excluding  the  people.'' 
These  elders  (between  the  minister  and  his 
people)  were  to  be  elected  by  the  congregation, 
and  they  could  be  removed  by  popular  vote. 
They  ruled  as  representatives  of  the  congrega- 
tion, whose  approval  was  necessary.  In  case 
of  division  of  opinion,  their  actions  being 
questioned,  the  appeal  should  first  be  to  Scrip- 
ture; and  finally,  a  conference  of  churches 
should  be  called  to  settle  the  dispute,  if  pos- 
sible. This  was  an  aristocratic  policy  with 
leanings  toward  democracy. 

The  last  word  on  these  matters  by  Hooker, 
''Survey  of  the  Summe  of  Church  Discipline," 
was  printed  (London)  a  year  after  his  death 
(1648).  He  held  that  the  Churches  of  England 
are  true  churches ;  and  he  condemned  the  policy 
of  Separation,  because  no  one  has  a  right  to 
leave  a  church,  even  though  it  contains  sinners 
or  lacks  certain  ordinances.  He  held,  also,  that 
each  local  congregation  is  a  complete  Church, 
equipped  with  full  authority:  ''There  is  no 
Presbyterial  Church  in  the  New  Testament." 
To  him  ordination  had  no  mystical  character: 
"Only  a  solemn  installing  of  an  officer."    And 

194 


The  Contribution  of  America 

'  ^  there  ought  to  be  no  ordination  of  a  minister 
at  large  ^ ' :  the  New  England  mind  had  no  relish 
for  clerical  orders:  it  hated  prelacy.  He 
put  more  emphasis  on  ^^ Consociation'^:  the 
friendly  association  of  neighboring  churches, — 
than  many  others.  These  consociations,  in 
time  did  much  to  preshyterianize  the  Connecti- 
cut; churches;  and  they  there  arrested  free 
religious  development.  But  Hooker  himself 
insisted  that  they  had  no  right  to  excommuni- 
cate or  pass  final  judgTQents. 

The  more  decisive  teachings  on  these  matters 
are  found  in  two  little  books  by  Cotton :  ^ '  Keyes 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven '^  (1644,  pp.  59), 
and:  *^The  Way  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
New  England  Cleared''  (1648,  pp.  xn.,  104). 
The  latter  converted  the  great  English  divine, 
John  Owen,  to  Independency.  After  nearly 
twenty  years  of  experiment  in  the  new  world 
there  was  need  for  definition,  which  the  second 
treatise  especially  provided. 

Two  opposing  parties  were  at  work  in  the 
land.  On  the  one  hand  the  Separatists  of 
Plymouth  and  their  friends.  On  the  other, 
many  new  people,  who  came  with  Presbyterian 
notions.  The  Westminster  Assembly  was 
coming  to  a  close;  and  it  had  been  dominated 
by  the  Scotch  Presbyterians.  Very  naturally, 
the  Presbyterians  in  Great  Britain  were 
anxious  to  shape  the  religious  life  of  the  new 
world. 

195 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

But  these  American  churches  were  distinctly 
non-conformist  and  their  people  had  grown 
broader  in  the  freedom  of  the  wilderness 
(many  almost  Separatists  without  knowing  it), 
and  the  arrogance  of  Presbyteries  was  offen- 
sive to  a  large  majority  of  them.  Cotton 
defended  the  common  church-order  and  per- 
manently attached  the  term  *  ^  Congregational '  ^ 
to  these  churches:  a  very  appropriate  name. 
New  Englanders  did  not  like  the  term  '^Inde- 
pendent/^ then  in  use  in  England,  because  it 
implied  separation  from  one  another  and  from 
the  State,  and  also  because  unwise  to  use  a 
term  that  might  offend  the  mother  country  by 
the  assumption  of  political  independence. 
Mather  reports  the  Apostle,  John  Eliot,  as 
giving  this  very  appropriate  description  of  the 
church-order  set  forth  by  Cotton:  *^He  per- 
ceived in  it  a  sweet  sort  of  temperament  be- 
tween rigid  Presbyterianism  and  levelling 
Brownism''  (Magnalia,  I.,  499).  As  the  main 
teachings  of  Cotton  were  almost  identical  with 
the  principles  formulated  by  the  Cambridge 
Synod,  they  will  be  sufficiently  described  in 
discussing  its  Platform. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  call  attention 
here  to  an  important  fact:  New  England  Con- 
gregationalists,  as  a  rule,  were  stout  Separa- 
tists, in  one  of  the  most  important  meanings  of 
that  word :  ^ '  separation  from  the  sinful  world. ' ' 
This  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  doctrines 

196 


The  Contribution  of  America 

in  Browne's  Treatise  of  Keformation,  and  also 
in  Robinson's  Justification  of  Separation. 
The  demand  of  all  the  great  New  England 
divines  was,  that  church  members  must  be 
separated  from  worldliness,  having  covenanted 
**to  walk  in  the  ways  of  Christ.''  Here  prob- 
ably we  have  the  origin  and  cause  of  that  very 
distinct,  precious,  and  powerful,  if  sometimes 
over-stressed,  element  in  American  life:  The 
New  England  Conscience. 

The  Presbyterian  influence  growing  stronger 
and  the  need  of  a  recognized  standard  becom- 
ing clearer,  the  demand  grew  for  a  general  New 
England  Conference.  Several  local  meetings 
had  already  been  held.  The  discovery  of  a 
movement  to  establish  the  Presbyterian  Sys- 
tem in  all  the  Colonies,  led  by  Vassall,  Child, 
and  Maverick  (1646)  had  made  a  decided  im- 
pression. Various  other  influences  hastened 
the  calling  of  the  Cambridge  Synod  in  1648. 
It  was  a  representative  body  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  about  fifty  churches.  But  many 
doubts  had  arisen  before  it  met  respecting  the 
wisdom  of  such  a  Synod,  both  in  the  General 
Court  and  also  among  the  churches.  Both  sides 
were  jealous  of  their  liberties,  showing  that  no 
dominant  hierarchy  or  established  religion  then 
existed.  In  the  General  Court  the  magistrates 
were  favorable,  but  the  deputies,  representing 
the  people,  *^had  their  little  scruples  how  far 
the  civil  authority  might  interfere  in  matters 

197 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

of  such  religious  and  ecclesiastical  cognizance'^ 
(Mather,  Magnalia  II.,  174). 

When  the  General  Court  finally  adopted  the 
plan  to  call  a  general  conference,  it  decided  to 
hold  itself  free  to  reject  or  approve  the  recom- 
mendations that  might  be  made.  It  is  also 
significant,  that  on  the  other  side,  the  First 
Church  of  Boston  hesitated  to  appoint  dele- 
gates *4est  some  invasion  of  that  liberty  were 
threatened.''  When  the  Platform  was  finally 
presented  to  the  General  Court,  its  members 
voted  to  recommend  it,  but  only  **for  the  sub- 
stance of  it. ' '  They  declined  to  make  it  obliga- 
tory. They  refused  to  set  forth  *^any  forms 
as  necessary  to  be  observed  by  the  churches  as 
a  binding  rule."    A  notable  decision. 

The  conclusions  of  the  Synod  on  three  points 
are  especially  interesting:  the  eldership,  the 
authority  of  magistrates,  the  functions  of  con- 
ferences or  synods.  (1)  Beside  the  minister 
(or  ministers:  teacher  and  pastor),  every  local 
church  should  have  elders,  who  might,  if  neces- 
sary, preach  and  administer  baptism  and  com- 
munion. Their  special  duty  was  thus  described : 
**to  pronounce  sentence  according  to  the  mind 
of  Christ,  with  the  consent  of  the  church' \' 
that  is :  to  oversee  the  conduct  of  members  and 
the  services  of  the  congregation.  This  author- 
ity came  from  the  people  who  could  recall  it. 
^^This  power  of  government  in  the  elders  doth 
not  any  wise  prejudice  the  power  or  privilege 

198 


The  Contribution  of  America 

in  the  brotherhood  [congregation]"  (Plat- 
form: Chapters  VII.-X.).  Moreover,  churches 
need  not  necessarily  have  elders:  some  had 
none  at  that  time.  Theoretically  the  congre- 
gation is  supreme,  but  practically  the  elder- 
ship intruded  an  aristocratic  element,  which, 
as  Dexter  declared  (Congregationalism,  698), 
to  that  extent  preshyterianized  Congregation- 
alism :  a  useless  intrusion,  like  a  fifth  wheel  to 
a  coach.  However,  as  time  passed  the  influence 
of  elders  waned,  and  they  finally  disappeared. 

In  the  Salem  Church  (the  first  Protestant 
church  organized  in  America) :  *^The  office  [of 
elder]  never  existed  but  in  name  and  did  not 
survive  the  first  generation '^  (Bentley,  Hist. 
Salem,  243).  In  the  First  Church  of  Ipswich, 
the  eldership  continued  until  the  beginning  of 
the  Eighteenth  Century  and  then  ceased.  Many 
churches  stopped  having  elders  earlier  than 
this.  Cotton  Mather  stated  (about  1679)  that 
the  churches  were  ^^  generally  destitute  of  such 
helps  in  government'':  the  rising  democratic 
sentiment  had  swept  them  aside. 

(2)  On  the  authority  of  magistrates  and  the 
relation  of  Church  and  State,  the  language  of 
the  Platform  is  somewhat  contradictory,  be- 
cause the  public  mind  of  the  Colony  was  then 
more  or  less  confused.  On  one  point,  the 
teaching  is  explicit:  *^The  choice  of  such 
church-officers  belongeth  not  to  the  civil  mag- 
istrates''   (VIIL,    9).     Another   statement   is 

199 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

significant:  **As  it  is  unlawful  for  churcli- 
officers  to  meddle  with  the  sword  of  the  magis- 
trate, so  it  is  unlawful  for  the  magistrate  to 
meddle  with  the  work  proper  to  church- 
officers^'  (XVIL,  5).  But  the  way  to  persecu- 
tion was  kept  open  by  these  words :  *  ^  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  magistrate  to  take  care  of  matters 
of  religion''  (XVII.,  6).  That  is,  the  magis- 
trate must  not  go  inside  the  local  church  to 
dictate  in  its  affairs,  but  the  General  Court 
should  insist  on  obedience  to  the  whole  Deca- 
logue,— duties  to  God  as  well  as  to  man.  It 
must  not  meddle  in  parish  affairs,  but  it  must 
publicly  protect  and  foster  religion.  This 
opened  the  door  to  a  certain  amount  of  state 
control  of  religion,  which,  so  far  as  applied  in 
practical  affairs,  would  necessarily  lead  to  per- 
secution. Thus  the  door  to  persecution  was 
kept  open,  but  the  authorities  seldom  passed 
through  it,  being  restrained  by  a  strong  public 
sentiment,  which,  before  many  years  passed, 
closed  the  door  and  left  men  free  to  think  and 
to  grow. 

(3)  While  churches  are  described  as  distinct 
and  equal,  and  *^have  no  dominion  one  over 
another,"  a  fellowship  among  the  churches  is 
emphasized.  And  a  practical  application  of 
this  idea  meant  the  calling  of  a  conference 
(synod)  to  help  a  local  church  in  time  of  need 
or  trouble,  ^*to  give  directions  for  the  refor- 
mation   thereof;    not    to    exercise  .  .  .  church 

200 


The  Contribution  of  America 

authority  or  jurisdiction' '  (^VL,  4).  The 
church  involved  could  accept  or  ignore  the 
advice  offered  by  the  conference. 

This  Platform  describes  the  Congregational 
Church  as  a  Democracy  under  restraint.  The 
Presbyterian  party  was  defeated,  but  an  aris- 
tocratic excrescence  (the  eldership)  was  per- 
mitted. On  the  whole,  this  was  a  forward- 
looking  document,  which  affirmed  many  more 
liberties  than  it  denied,  and  it  kept  the  field 
free  for  growth  into  fuller  freedom, — which 
followed. 


VI 

There  has  been  a  widespread  legend  that  the 
early  settlers  of  the  Bay  Colony  declared  their 
purpose  in  coming  to  America  to  be  to  found 
a  refuge  for  all  sorts  of  persecuted  heretics; 
and  then,  when  here,  proceeded  at  once  to 
punish  cruelly  every  one  holding  a  different 
faith.  Therefore  they  have  been  severely  con- 
demned, not  only  for  inhumanity  but  for 
hypocrisy.  But  this  fairy  tale  has  nearly 
faded  away.  Their  enterprise  was  far  more 
economic  than  religious;  they  never  pretended 
that  they  proposed  to  establish  religious 
equality;  and  the  persecutions,  in  which  they 
did  unfortunately  engage,  were  few  and  mild 
in  comparison  with  what  then  existed,  with 
very  few  exceptions,  throughout  the  world. 

201 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

The  celebrated  case  of  Anne  Hutchinson 
(1637)  involved  both  political  and  religious 
passions,  like  that  of  Eoger  Williams.  She 
was,  primarily,  ^^a  disturber  of  the  peace'': 
although  she  did  not,  like  Williams,  attack  the 
very  foundations  of  civil  government.  Her 
banishment  is  a  blot  upon  the  history  of  the 
Colony,  which  no  plea  of  *  Apolitical  necessity'' 
can  efface.  The  only  extenuation  possible  is 
that  such  disorders  involved,  at  that  time, 
serious  political  dangers ;  and  also,  that  similar 
conduct  would,  in  that  age  and  in  many  lands, 
have  been  visited  with  more  drastic  punish- 
ment. Various  isolated  cases  of  punishment, 
chiefly  for  so-called  offences  against  religion, 
need  not  here  be  discussed. 

The  treatment  of  the  Quakers  by  Massachu- 
setts was  shamefully  inhuman  from  our  point 
of  view;  but  the  details  of  the  story  need  not 
be  given  in  these  pages.  It  represents  an  epi- 
sode of  criminal  foolishness  rather  than  a 
settled  policy  of  religious  persecution.  Cott(m 
Mather  wisely  made  a  broad  dis'tinction  be- 
tween those  Foxian  Quakers,  who  disturbed 
Boston,  and  the  sedate  and  orderly  followers 
of  Penn,  a  generation  later :  the  former  having 
A^an  intolerable  contempt  of  authority"  (Mag- 
nalia,  II.,  453).  They  insulted  the  governor, 
denounced  all  civil  government,  disturbed 
worshipping  congregations,  and  walked  naked 
in  public  places.     Such  people  would  today  be 

202 


The  Contribution  of  America 

sent  to  an  asylum  as  lunatics,  instead  of  being 
flogged,  imprisoned  or  banished  as  was  then 
done.  Governor  Endicott  and  the  clergy  made 
the  mistake  of  considering  them  possessed  of 
the  devil  and  therefore  deserving  death.  This, 
however,  was  the  common  view,  not  only  in 
England  but  throughout  the  world:  In  New 
York  these  *^ Friends''  were  never  so  violent, 
but  there  they  were  severely  punished  as  in  the 
Colonies  farther  south. 

They  invaded  Massachusetts  in  1656, — Anne 
Austin  and  Mary  Fisher, — but  they  were 
shipped  to  Barbadoes.  Eleven  came  the  next 
year  and  made  ''  permanent  plantings  of  their 
views."  The  Governor  begged  them  to  keep 
away.  The  Act  establishing  the  death  penalty 
did  not  refer  to  their  lawless  conduct,  much 
less  to  their  religious  views,  but  to  their  wilful 
return, — quite  another  matter.  At  first,  there 
was,  in  the  Lower  House,  a  majority  against 
the  law:  15  to  11,  which  showed  the  popular 
feeling  to  be  averse  to  such  severity.  By  use 
of  considerable  clerical  pressure  it  finally 
passed  by  a  majority  of  one  vote.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  at  this  time  there  were  fifteen 
crimes  punishable  by  death:  such  as  idolatry, 
blasphemy,  sabbath  breaking,  and  cursing 
parents.  In  Europe  generally,  the  list  was 
longer  and  included  milder  offences.  As  a 
result  of  this  law  three  men  and  one  woman 
(Mary  Dyer)  suffered  death.     So  great,  how- 

203 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

ever,  was  the  popular  protest,  that  only  the 
presence  of  soldiers  prevented  an  uprising. 
And  when  Christison  was  condemned  in  1661, 
public  sentiment  was  so  strong  that  he  escaped 
the  death  penalty.  The  story  is  a  mournful 
one,  but  the  incidents  were  not  unusual  in  the 
world  at  that  time.  There  was,  in  these  cases, 
no  real  persecution  for  heresy.  The  victims 
were  few  and  an  end  soon  came  to  the  bad 
business.  There  was  no  justification  for  the 
severity  exercised,  but  the  offences  committed 
actually  deserved  punishment. 

The  treatment  of  the  Baptists  was,  in  many 
respects,  more  reprehensible  than  the  punish- 
ment of  the  Quakers.  The  Baptists  were  then, 
as  now,  an  exceedingly  earnest,  orderly  and 
God-fearing  people,  the  least  sacramental  and 
the  most  Scriptural  of  the  large  Protestant 
sects.  There  were  many  points  of  contact 
between  them  and  the  Congregationalists : 
They  were  strict  Calvinists;  they  put  great 
emphasis  on  religious  experience;  their  church 
polity  was  similar;  their  opposition  to  prelacy 
was  intense.  But  there  was  radical  difference 
respecting  baptism.  They  rejected  infant  bap- 
tism for  various  reasons :  because  unscriptural ; 
because  they  regarded  baptism,  not  as  a  mys- 
tical rite,  but  as  seal  and  symbol  of  conversion, 
— the  experimental  acceptance  of  Christ  by 
faith — ^what  was  impossible  with  the  babe ;  and 
because  they  held  a  more  generous  view  of 

204 


The  Contribution  of  America 

God^s  providence  and  man's  nature:  children 
did  not  need  to  be  christened  to  be  saved  from 
hell-fire. 

Obscure  and  petty  as  the  matter  may  appear 
to  us,  fundamental  differences  seemed  then  to 
separate  Congregationalists  and  Baptists.  The 
Congregationalists  believed  mightily  in  a  fiery 
hell  to  which  all  unregenerates  were  sent :  even 
the  merciful  Wigglesworth  could  only  venture 
to  hope  that  non-elect  infants  might  occupy 
'^the  easiest  room  in  helP'  (Day  of  Doom: 
1662).  Therefore  to  them,  baptism  seemed  of 
supreme  importance,  because  its  sacramental 
efficacy  took  babes  out  of  the  company  of  the 
damned  and  placed  them  under  the  shelter  of 
God's  saving  grace. 

The  views  of  the  Baptists  were  radically 
diiferent,  as  has  just  been  intimated:  Baptism 
being  not  a  sacrament  but  a  symbol,  both  of 
the  Atonement  of  Christ  and  also  of  its  experi- 
mental acceptance  by  the  believer ;  and  as  such, 
it  should  never  be  administered  except  to 
adults,  and  then  only  after  conversion.  Hence, 
to  them,  infant  baptism  seemed  sinful,  be- 
cause it  destroyed  the  true  meaning  of  the 
rite;  and  also,  because  it  obscured  the  great 
doctrine  of  Eedemption.  Again,  they  looked 
upon  infant  baptism  as  a  Eomish  superstition : 
a  part  of  the  paganish  magic  of  the  Papacy. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  easy  to  see  why 
Baptists  were  bitter  against  infant  baptism, 

205 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

and  why  Congregationalists  were  equally  bitter 
against  the  Baptists.  A  great  gulf  separated 
them.  The  latter  hated  as  an  evil  superstition, 
what  the  former  regarded  as  an  indispensable 
agency  for  the  rescue  of  their  children  from 
the  wrath  of  God. 

So  it  came  about  that  the  denial  of  infant 
baptism  angered  the  magistrates  and  ministers 
of  Massachusetts.  In  some  cases  this  denial 
was  made  with  great  bitterness.  In  1643 
(June  12),  Lady  Deborah  Moody  of  Lynn  was 
admonished  because  she  denounced  the  rite  as 
popish,  and  she  was  so  persecuted  that  she  felt 
obliged  to  leave  her  large  estate  which  she  had 
bought  in  Swampscott.  In  1646,  William 
Witter  of  Lynn  was  persecuted  for  saying: 
^^They  who  stayed  while  a  child  was  baptised 
do  worship  the  deviP':  certainly  language 
offensive  to  the  founders  of  the  Colony.  But 
such  fanatical  expressions  were  not  common. 
A  little  before  (1644)  a  law  was  passed  which 
provided  that  persons  persistently  denouncing 
the  baptism  of  infants  be  banished  from  the 
Colony. 

The  most  noteworthy  case  was  that  of  three 
ministers, — Clarke,  Holmes  and  Crandall, — 
from  the  Newport  Baptist  Church,  who  held  a 
meeting  at  a  private  house  in  Swampscott, 
July  20,  1651.  For  this  they  were  lodged  in 
the    Boston    jail    and    fined    by    the    Court. 

206 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Holmes  would  not  pay  his  fine  of  £30  and  on 
Sept.  6,  following,  he  was  whipped  Thirty 
Stripes! — this  was  according  to  English  law. 
At  their  trial,  Eev.  John  Wilson,  of  the  First 
Church,  really  a  gentle  spirit,  so  far  forgot 
himself  that  he  struck  and  cursed  Holmes! 
Thirteen  persons  present  at  the  trial  were 
punished  in  varying  degrees  for  showing  sym- 
pathy. John  Spur  and  John  Hazel  were  sen- 
tenced ten  lashes  or  forty  shillings  for  shaking 
hands  with  Holmes  while  he  was  going  to  the 
whipping  post !  And  all  this  John  Cotton  fool- 
ishly and  wickedly  defended. 

In  these  cases  there  was  nothing  that  re- 
sembled sedition,  as  with  Williams;  and  there 
was  no  assault  upon  the  authority  of  magis- 
trates or  upon  public  decency,  as  with  the  early 
Quakers.  It  was  inexcusable  bigotry  concern- 
ing what  seems  to  us  a  small  matter:  infant 
baptism.  The  Baptists  continued  to  suffer 
numerous  hardships  and  injustices  for  many 
years.  It  was  not  until  1727,  that  an  Act  was 
passed  exempting  them  from  paying  taxes  for 
the  support  of  the  parish  churches.  To  their 
great  credit,  it  must  be  stated  that  the  Baptists 
bore  these  wrongs  with  great  patience  and  self- 
restraint.  They  persistently  labored  for  uni- 
versal religious  freedom,  and  to  them  more 
than  any  other  church  was  due  the  victory  for 
the  separation  of  Church  and  State  by  the  new 

207 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Constitution  of  the  Commonwealth  in  1833. 
The  so-called  ^* non-aid'*  amendment  of  1917 
completed  this  movement. 

In  passing  judgment  upon  Colonial  Massa- 
chusetts, we  must  compare  conditions  there 
with  conditions  in  other  American  Colonies  at 
the  same  time.  In  the  Dutch  Colony  of  New 
Netherlands,  a  law  was  passed  in  1640  prohib- 
iting all  forms  of  worship  except  the  Dutch 
Eeformed.  Stuyvesant  prohibited  (1656)  all 
men  from  preaching  except  those  having  a 
license  from  himself:  any  one  preaching  with- 
out such  a  license  to  be  fined  £100,  and  each  of 
his  hearers,  £25.  The  next  year,  he  prohibited 
J.  E.  Goetwater,  a  Lutheran,  from  organizing 
a  church  in  his  own  house :  he  a  representative 
of  liberal  Holland,  and  the  silenced  preacher 
an  orthodox  Lutheran  with  a  faith  differing 
from  his  own  only  in  minute  particulars !  The 
same  year  Sheriff  William  Hallett  of  Flushing 
was  removed  from  office  and  fined  £50  for  per- 
mitting a  Baptist,  Eev.  William  Wickenden  of 
Providence,  to  hold  services  in  his  house,  and 
the  minister  was  fined  £100  and  banished,  be- 
ing held  in  jail  until  fine  and  costs  were  paid 
(Armitage,  History  of  Baptists,  748). 

On  the  arrival  of  Governor  Nicolls  from 
England,  New  Amsterdam  became  New  York, 
and  in  his  code  of  laws  (1665),  he  acted  with 
great  liberality  and  granted  general  toleration 
in  matters  of  religion.     But  when  Episcopacy 

208 


The  Contribution  of  America 

became  firmly  established  later,  different  con- 
ditions soon  arose.  In  fact,  Nicolls'  law  on 
this  subject  was  little  more  than  a  transient 
ideal.  The  claims  that  religions  liberty  in 
America  was  established,  as  some  assert,  by 
the  Dutch,  and  others  by  Nicolls,  have  no 
foundation  in  fact,  as  will  be  seen  from  state- 
ments to  be  made  later  in  the  Appendix  which 
follows  this  chapter. 

While  Puritans  were  persecuting  Baptists 
in  Massachusetts  (1662),  a  law  was  passed  in 
Virginia  imposing  a  fine  of  2,000  pounds  of 
tobacco  upon  any  one  refusing  to  have  his  child 
baptised:  aimed  at  Baptists  and  Quakers. 
Early  in  the  history  of  Virginia,  only  those 
could  teach  who  had  certificates  from  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury;  while  in  North 
Carolina,  among  the  many  acts  of  persecution 
perpetrated  by  the  Episcopalians  was  the 
regulation  which  was  in  force  until  about  1770, 
which  prohibited  all  persons,  no  matter  how 
pious  or  cultivated,  from  engaging  in  the  work 
of  education  unless  licensed  by  the  Bishop  of 
London:  ''a,  foolishness  of  bigotry''  that  never 
stained  the  history  of  Massachusetts  at  its 
worst.  In  both  these  Colonies  for  many  years, 
no  minister  but  an  Episcopalian  could  solem- 
nize marriages. 

The  agents  of  Massachusetts  in  conference 
with  Charles  11.,  in  1682,  could  assure  the  King 
that    the    days    of   persecution  were    passed: 

209 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Episcopalians  enjoyed  all  civil  privileges,  laws 
against  Quakers  had  been  repealed,  and  there 
were  no  longer  any  penal  statutes  against  Bap- 
tists,— certainly  a  very  creditable  showing  con- 
sidering the  date  and  the  condition  of  the  rest 
of  the  world.  In  one  respect,  that  is,  the  free- 
dom of  the  franchise  in  the  Colony  at  that  time 
from  religious  tests,  was  almost  a  unique  sit- 
uation in  America.  To  be  citizens  in  New  York, 
Maryland,  and  even  Rhode  Island,  men  must 
believe  in  Christianity,  and  this  test  was  im- 
posed that  very  year  upon  the  franchise  by  the 
organic  law  of  Pennsylvania. 

VI 

A  man  is  not  justified  in  his  wrong  doing  by 
the  fact  that  others  are  at  the  same  time  com- 
mitting worse  sins ;  but  before  passing  a  severe 
and  final  judgment  upon  the  Puritans  of 
Massachusetts  during  the  seventeenth  century, 
it  is  no  more  than  right  that  we  consider  the 
conditions  in  European  nations  during  the 
same  period. 

In  June,  1630,  the  Star-Chamber  Court 
passed  the  following  sentence  upon  an  English 
minister,  Alexander  Leighton  (both  a  divine 
and  a  physician),  for  publishing  ^^Sion's  Plea 
against  the  Prelacie"  (1628) :  To  be  degraded 
from  the  ministry,  to  be  imprisoned  for  life,  to 
pay    a   fine    of   £10,000,    to    be    pilloried   and 

210 


The  Contribution  of  America 

whipped,  to  have  an  ear  cut  off  and  the  nose 
slit,  and  to  be  branded  *'S.  S.''  (sower  of 
sedition)  on  the  cheeks !  He  escaped  this  hor- 
rible fate,  although  a  part  of  the  sentence  was 
inflicted  with  great  barbarity.  But  many 
others  were  not  so  fortunate.  Nothing  as  bad 
as  this  ever  occurred  in  Massachusetts. 

The  persecutions  of  the  Baptists  in  Massa- 
chusetts have  been  briefly  described.  But  while 
these  were  at  their  worst,  Jeremy  Taylor,  the 
broadest-minded  Anglican  divine  of  his  day, 
made  this  statement  in  his  notable  plea  for 
toleration  (Liberty  of  Prophesying:  1647), — 
referring  to  English  Baptists,  then  commonly 
called  Anabaptists :  They  should  be  rooted  out 
as  ^Hhe  greatest  pest  and  nuisance!'' 

Harvard  College  was  founded  in  1636,  and 
it  was  open  from  the  beginning  to  all,  religious 
tests  never  having  been  applied.  But  such 
tests  were  only  recently  abolished  in  the  British 
Isles:  Oxford  and  Cambridge  in  1871;  Dublin 
in  1873;  the  Scottish  Universities  in  1889. 

Citizenship  was  conditioned  upon  church 
membership  in  Massachusetts  for  some  years, 
and  there  was  some  excuse  in  the  somewhat 
private  and  commercial  character  of  the  settle- 
ment. One  strong  motive  behind  this  law  was 
the  desire  to  keep  out  lawless  and  adventurous 
Anglicans  who  would  simply  exploit  the  coun- 
try. But  by  the  Test  Act  of  1673  an  English- 
man to  hold  office  must  first  take  the  sacrament 

211 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

in  an  Anglican  Church,  and  this  law  was  not 
wholly  abolished  until  within  the  last  hundred 
years.  Such  restrictions  on  citizenship  contin- 
ued to  a  much  later  date  in  many  European 
countries.  This  has  been  true  in  the  Scandi- 
navian nations.  All  **  sects  ^'  were  prohibited 
in  Denmark  until  1849.  At  present  Baptist 
churches  are  tolerated  in  Sweden  only  under 
the  shelter  of  the  established  Lutheran  Church, 
for  whose  support  they  must  pay  taxes.  Uni- 
versity professors  still  have  to  pretend  to  be 
Lutherans  I 

While  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  in 
session  (1643-1648)  many  Unitarians  were 
severely  punished,  though  they  were  not  offen- 
sively disorderly  like  the  Quakers  in  Boston 
(thirty  years  before  they  had  been  burned) : 
their  punishments  were  far  worse  than  those 
inflicted  upon  Baptists  in  Massachusetts  a  little 
later.  In  1697,  a  boy-student  of  eighteen  in  the 
University  at  Edinburgh,  Thomas  Aikenhead, 
was  hanged  for  asserting  (though  he  denied  the 
charge  made  by  student  enemies)  that  the  term, 
*' God-man  ^^  is  as  absurd  as  the  term,  ^^Square- 
Eound'M  The  severe  laws  against  Unitarians 
were  not  repealed  until  1813.  They  could  by 
the  Statutes  of  William  III.  and  George  III. 
be  disfranchised,  imprisoned  (and  property 
confiscated),  for  denying  the  Trinity  or  the 
infallibility  of  the  Bible.       Catholics  did  not 

212 


The  Contribution  of  America 

obtain  full  civil  rights  until  1829,  Jews  not 
until  1858. 

Eoger  Williams,  in  a  letter  (March  26,  1671) 
to  John  Cotton,  Jr.,  minister  of  the  Pilgrim 
Church  at  Plymouth,  made  the  statement  that 
copies  of  his  great  book  were  burned  in  Eng- 
land: ^*  'Tis  true  my  first  book  *The  Bloudy 
Tenent'  was  burned  by  the  Presbyterian  party 
(then  prevailing)" — probably  about  1645.  No 
heretical  books  were  ever  burned  in  Massachu- 
setts. 

From  1660  to  1688  (while  there  were  practi- 
cally no  punishments  in  Massachusetts  for 
heresy  alone),  60,000  English  Dissenters  were 
thrown  into  jails  and  prisons, — about  2,000  a 
year  in  a  population  of  some  5,000,000, — and 
2,000  there  died  of  privation:  at  the  rate 
of  one  every  fifth  day!  In  this  period  fell 
the  Protestant  St.  Bartholomew  Day  (Aug. 
24,  1662),  when  over  2,000  non-conformist 
ministers  were  driven  out  of  their  pulpits. 
A  little  later  came  the  Conventicle  Act  (1664), 
which  imposed  punishment  upon  those  attend- 
ing a  religious  service  in  a  private  house, 
and  then  the  Five  Mile  Act  (1665),  which 
prohibited  the  non-conformist  ministers  from 
living  within  five  miles  of  an  Anglican  church ! 
It  was  also  in  this  period  that  John  Bunyan, 
the  Baptists'  most  celebrated  writer,  was  kept 
in   jail   at   Bedford   for  twelve   years,   being 

213 


The  Winning  of  Eeligiotts  Liberty 

liberated  in  1672  by  a  royal  decree  intended, 
not  so  much  to  help  Dissenters  as  to  favor  the 
Catholic  friends  of  his  Majesty,  Charles  II. 

The  story  of  intolerance  and  persecution  on 
the  continent  of  Europe  during  this  period  is 
too  long  to  be  given  here.  But  a  few  of  the 
innumerable  facts  may  well  be  briefly  stated 
by  way  of  comparison.  Conditions  in  Holland 
were  more  favorable  than  elsewhere  and  the 
relations  of  New  England  to  that  land  were 
more  intimate  than  with  any  other  European 
country.  And  yet,  in  free  Holland  the  Martyr- 
dom of  Man  had  not  ceased.  As  much  as  the 
Pilgrims  were  esteemed  in  Leiden,  they  were 
not  permitted  a  place  for  ** public''  worship. 
Before  the  Mayflower  sailed,  the  Synod  of  Dort 
had  formulated  a  creed  which  drove  two  hun- 
dred Arminian  ministers  out  of  their  pulpits: 
No  man  could  henceforth  teach  children,  lec- 
ture to  the  young,  or  preach  to  the  mature 
unless  a  subscriber  to  its  drastic  Calvinistic 
Creed.  It  was  ten  years  later  (1630)  before 
these  Remonstrants  gained  partial  freedom, 
and  full  recognition  did  not  come  until  1795. 
The  fate  of  their  two  most  eminent  representa- 
tives was  most  pathetic:  Bameveldt,  the  most 
eminent  Dutchman  of  the  age,  was  beheaded 
(1619),  their  greatest  lawyer,  the  celebrated 
Hugo  Grotius,  was  imprisoned,  but  he  was  later 
able  to  escape  into  exile,  and  all  this  for  a 
slight  difference  of  speculative  opinion,  a  piece 

214 


The  Contribution  of  America 

of  mysticism  difficult  to  define  and  destitute 
of  religious  importance.  Nothing  so  horrible 
as  this  ever  occurred  in  New  England.  Possibly 
this  terrible  tragedy  at  the  Hague, — the  execu- 
tion of  Bameveldt, — a  short  day's  ride  distant, 
may  have  stirred  the  Pilgrims  to  serious 
thoughts  in  reference  to  leaving  Holland. 

While  the  Cambridge  Synod  was  making  its 
Platform,  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia  (1648)  was 
signed:  the  beginning  of  International  Law. 
Its  provisions  show  that  principles  of  religious 
freedom  had  made  little  impression  upon  the 
minds  of  European  rulers  and  statesmen.  All 
rulers  were  confirmed  in  their  right  to  impose 
their  own  faith  upon  all  their  subjects :  if  dis- 
senters arose  they  might  be  permitted  or  even 
forced  to  emigrate, — this  then  seemed  a  very 
merciful  provision!  Protestants  were,  how- 
ever, positively  excluded  from  Austria.  After 
thirty  years  of  most  devastating  war,  religious 
liberty  had  gained  nothing. 

A  single  fact  shows  how  far  ahead  of  the 
world  Massachusetts  really  was  during  the  last 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  In  France,  then 
the  most  cultivated  country  in  the  world  (1766), 
— and  maay  **  rationalists "  were  prominent  in 
its  affairs, — ^La  Barre,  a  lad  of  nineteen  (of 
distinguished  family),  was  accused  merely  by 
idle  rumor,  of  having  mutilated  a  crucifix. 
After  one  of  the  most  notable  trials  of  the 
century,  during  which  he  was  put  to  torture, 

215 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

he  was  comdcted  and  beheaded.  But  at  that 
very  time,  in  many  prominent  pulpits  of  the 
oldest  churches  of  Massachusetts,  ministers 
were  preaching  sermons  that  denied  the  dis- 
tinctive dogmas  of  Calvinism,  ignored  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  affirmed  universal 
salvation,  and  not  a  single  heresy  trial  was 
held! 


VII 

Certain  facts  respecting  religious  bigotry  in 
the  history  of  New  England  have  been  over- 
emphasized. Other  facts,  and  they  are  many, 
illustrating  the  breadth  and  catholicity  of  its 
churches  have  been  given  no  adequate  attention. 
Many  people  have  thought  of  the  Pilgrim  or  the 
Puritan  as  a  very  grim  and  solemn  person,  and 
there  are  facts  to  support  this  impression.  But 
other  facts  have  been  neglected.  This  for 
instance :  On  May  28,  1698,  Timothy  Edwards, 
the  father  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  was  ordained 
over  the  church  at  Windsor  Farmes,  between 
Springfield  and  Hartford.  On  the  evening  of 
the  same  day,  ^^An  Ordination  BalP'  was  given 
at  the  pastor's  house^  the  invitations  to  which 
he  himself  wrote.  Many  today  would  think 
/    such  an  affair  *^  unseemly  levity 'M 

Two  years  later  than  this  (1700),  Solomon 
Stoddard  of  the  First  Church,  Northampton 
(the  grandfather  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  who 

216 


The  Contribution  of  America 

succeeded  him),  published  a  book,  *' Doctrine 
of  Instituted  Churches,''  in  which  he  defended 
his  own  practice  of  inviting  all  persons  to  join " 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  holding  that  whatever 
their  belief,  even  though  in  ^'a  natural  con- 
dition" (unconverted),  they  should  be  given  the 
sacrament,  which  as  a  means  of  grace  might 
help  them.  This  practice  was  the  outcome  of 
a  custom,  begun  a  half  century  before  and 
called  ^^The  Half -Way  Covenant."  This  was 
the  product  of  a  broad  spirit  and  it  promoted 
liberality.  It  was  a  device  for  including  men  of 
good  character  within  the  local  church  on  easy 
doctrinal  terms.  It  was  an  arrangement  by 
which  parents,  who  had  been  baptised  in  infancy 
but  who  had  never  made  an  open  and  formal 
confession  of  faith,  could,  by  ^*  owning  the  cove- 
nant"— ^not  a  creed  but  a  spiritual  promise, 
— have  their  children  baptised,  and  so  become 
visible  members  of  the  Church.  The  privileges 
of  persons  so  admitted  broadened  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  came  in  time  to  possess  prac- 
tically nearly  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
those  who  entered  by  definite  conversion.  The 
wide  liberality  is  obvious. 

There  were,  for  a  season,  differences  and 
heartburnings  at  this  point.  When  John  Daven- 
port of  New  Haven,  a  strong  opponent  of  the 
** broad  way,"  became  minister  of  the  First 
Church,  Boston,  on  this  issue,  twenty-eight 
members  left  and  formed  the  Old  South  Church 

217 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(1667),  and  for  some  time  there  was  unfriendli- 
ness between  the  two,  and  other  churches  took 
sides.  But  the  two  points  to  be  emphasized 
here  are  these:  (1)  That  the  churches  should 
desire  such  a  generous  method  for  accommodat- 
ing and  including  persons  of  good  character 
but  indefinite  religious  experience.  (2)  That 
in  a  few  years  contention  at  this  point  so  com- 
pletely vanished  that  in  1726  Cotton  Mather 
could  write  that  the  different  views  and  prac- 
tices along  this  line  neither  interfered  with 
fellowship  nor  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
churches;  showing  a  remarkable  breadth  of 
spirit. 

This  liberality  was,  in  a  sense,  implicated  in 
the  Covenants  of  the  early  churches.  The 
expectaftion  of  growth  is  clearly  stated  in  that 
of  the  Pilgrim  Church:  ^^Made  known  or  to 
he  made  known  unto  us.^^  Through  such  an 
open  door  more  would  come, —  more  did  come, 
— than  was  expected.  The  same  door  was  kept 
open  by  that  of  the  Salem  Church :  *  *  according 
as  God  is  pleased  to  reveal  himself  unto  us  in 
his  blessed  Word  of  truth,*' — the  expectancy 
of  progress.  Of  this,  the  distinguished  divine, 
Dr.  William  Bentley  (1758-1819)  of  Salem, 
well  wrote:  ^*If  it  speaks  not  the  language  of 
a  sect,  it  breathes  the  spirit  of  Christian  union'* 
(History  of  Salem:  First  Series:  Mass.  Hist. 
Coll.  VI.,  243).  Similar  covenants  were  used 
by  other  churches. 

218 


The  Contribution  of  America 

It  was  of  such  a  covenant  that  the  early 
historian  wrote  (1669) :  **It  was  acknowledged 
only  as  a  direction  .  .  .  and  therefore  no  man 
was  confined  unto  that  form  of  words,  but 
only  to  the  substance,  end,  and  scope  of  the 
matter  contained  therein*'  (Morton's  Memo- 
rial, 99).  In  discussing  this  general  subject. 
Dr.  Palfrey  arrived  at  this  conclusion, — amply 
warranted  by  the  facts:  The  covenants  were 
*^  remarkably  free  in  the  earliest  times  from 
statements  of  doctrine"  (Hist,  of  N.  E.  II.,  36). 
It  was  this  broad  spirit  of  the  covenants  which 
spoke  in  the  words  of  John  Cotton:  **We  are 
far  from  arrogating  infallibility  of  judgment  to 
ourselves  or  affecting  uniformity;  uniformity 
God  never  required;  infallibility  he  never 
granted  us"  (Letter  to  Sir  E.  Saltonsitall 
[1640],  Hutchinson  Papers,  II.,  133). 

In  the  preface  to  the  Cambridge  Platform 
(1648),  there  is  a  stout  defence  of  the  custom 
of  the  churches  in  using  a  wide  charity  respect- 
ing church  members;  and  in  it  these  notable 
words  are  found,  in  answer  to  those  who  con- 
demned their  inclusive  policy :  *  ^  By  admitting 
none  into  the  fellowship  of  our  churches  but 
saints  by  calling,  we  [would]  rob  many  parish 
churches  of  their  best  members."  The  writer 
(probably  John  Cotton)  argued  *Hhat  being 
overparticular  would  despoil  ministers  of  their 
best  hearers."  More  remarkable  still  is  this 
language:    **The  weakest  measure  of  faith  is 

219 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

i^  to  be  accepted  in  those  that  desire  to  be  admitted 
into  the  church,  because  weak  Christians,  if  sin- 
cere, have  the  substance  of  that  faith,  repentance 
and  holiness  [not  dogma  and  rite],  which  is 
required  in  church  members 'M  (Chap.  XII.,  3.) 
There  are  few  churches  in  Christendom  today 
which  follow  so  liberal  a  policy  as  this.  The 
same  breadth  is  found  in  discussing  the  subject 
of  excommunication:  ** Excommunication  being 
a  spiritual  punishment,  it  dotth  not  prejudice 
the  excommunicate  in  nor  deprive  him  of  his 
civil  rights ''(  Chap.  XIV.,  6).  This  fact  shows 
how  far  Church  and  State  were  separated. 

Samuel  Mather  (1706-1785),  the  fourth  and 
last  of  the  ** Mather  Dynasty,'^  was  a  prominent 
patriot-preacher  of  Boston  during  the  Revolu- 
tion: probably  the  first  American  writer  to 
claim  that  Europeans  had  visited  this  continent 
before  Columbus.  In  1738, — ten  years  after 
his  father's  death — he  published  a  little  book, 
'*  Apology  for  the  Liberties  of  the  Churches  in 
New  England, ' '  which  ought  to  have  given  him 
more  fame  than  he  has  enjoyed.  The  /teaching 
of  this  book,  although  it  appeared  half  way 
through  the  Great  Awakening  (1734-1742),  in 
the  midst  of  a  theological  reaction,  is  decidedly 
broad.  He  quotes  a  remarkable  letter  written 
,  by  his  father.  Cotton  Mather,  in  which  these 
^  words  are  found :  ^  ^  Piety  will  anon  be  the  only 
basis  of  [Church]  Union,  .  .  .  and  pious  men, 
in  several  forms,  will  come  to  love  and  live  as 

220 


The  Contribution  of  America 

brethren^'  (p.  150) :  a  platform  broader  than 
that  of  our  present  Federation  of  American 
Churches!  His  own  words  are  even  more 
explicit, — they  might  have  been  written  by 
Channing:  ^'For  although  we  prefer  the  con- 
stitution of  these  churches  before  any  other; 
still  we  think  it  our  duty  to  love  and  show  our 
affection  to  all  good  and  well  disposed  people  of 
whatever  communion  or  religious  profession 
they  may  be,  to  speak  well  and  handsomely 
concerning  them  and  serve  them  to  the  utter- 
most of  our  power;  nor  indeed  have  we  any 
scruple  about  admitting  any  Baptist,  Presby- 
terian, or  Episcopalian  into  our  communion. 
Not  only  our  houses  and  hearts,  but  our 
churches  also  are  open  to  them,  as  far  as  in  a 
judgment  of  charity  we  have  reason  to  think 
them  to  be  persons  of  good  understanding, 
piety,  and  virtue^'  (Apology,  p.  34).  Those 
are  indeed  noble  words ! 

And  this  broadening  spirit  showed  itself, 
not  only  in  words  but  also  in  deeds.  There  were 
many  incidents,  similar  to  the  following,  during 
the  opening  decades  of  the  Eighteenth  Century 
in  Massachusetts,  which  reveal  a  surprising 
liberality,  a  remarkable  advance  during  the 
two  generations ; — In  1717,  Ellis  Callender  was 
ordained  over  the  Baptist  Church  in  Boston 
(organized  1665).  Cotton  Mather,  seldom  con- 
sidered a  liberal  in  religion,  preached  the 
ordination  sermon  and  the  venerable  Increase 

221 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Mather  (1639-1723),— the  greatest  of  the 
Mathers, — gave  the  right  hand  of  fellowship! 
In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to  recall  that 
for  over  fifty  years  after  this  event  in  Boston, 
Baptist  ministers  in  North  Carolina  were  not 
permitted  to  perform  the  marriage  ceremony, 
while  as  late  as  the  eve  of  the  Revolution  many 
Baptist  preachers  were  confined  for  many  days 
in  Virginia  jails  for  unlawfully  preaching  the 
Gospel ! 

The  religious  development  of  Massachusetts 
during  the  last  half  of  the  Eighteenth  Century 
was  more  rapid,  more  varied,  more  radical,  with 
less  friction  and  less  controversy,  than  that  of 
any  other  country  anywhere  in  the  world  at 
that  time.  The  same  changes  in  Scotland  would 
have  lighted  fires  of  hate  and  persecution  in 
every  town.  If  equally  great  departures  from 
the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  had  then  occurred 
in  the  Anglican  Churches  of  England,  as  those 
represented  by  Bentley  of  Salem,  Gay  of  Hing- 
ham,  and  Mayhew  and  Chauncy  of  Boston,  a 
revolution  would  have  followed.  If  the  min- 
isters of  Northern  Germany  had,  in  those  years, 
departed  as  far  from  the  principles  of  Luther- 
anism  as  a  large  number  of  the  Congregational 
ministers  of  Massachusetts  then  departed  from 
certain  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  bloodshed 
would  have  followed.  And  yet,  the  progress 
was  so  quiet  in  and  about  Boston  that  it  left 
few  traces  in  the  parish  records  of  the  period, 

222 


The  Contribution  of  America 

while  in  no  case  did  the  General  Court  taJie 
note  of  the  changes,  and  no  church  disfellow- 
shipped  its  sister  church  on  the  ground  of 
heresy  until  after  the  year  1800!  Surely  a 
most  remarkable  fact. 


vni 

In  writing  his  ** Apology/'  Samuel  Mather 
built  upon  the  broad  foundation  which  had  been 
laid  nearly  a  generation  before  by  John  Wise  of 
Ipswich,  in  writings  suggested  by  Sixteen  Pro- 
posals (1705),  in  the  formation  of  which, 
curiously,  his  own  father.  Cotton  Mather,  had 
taken  a  prominent  part. 

But  who  was  this  man,  John  Wise?  His 
name  has  so  completely  faded  from  the  present 
thoughts  of  men  that  hardly  a  reference  to  him 
can  be  found  in  history  or  cyclopaedia.  And 
yet,  he  was  a  mighty  man  in  his  day  and  con- 
tributed much  to  the  making  of  America.  Born 
at  Eoxbury  (August,  1652)  and  educated  at  its 
*^free  schooP';  trained  under  Eev.  John  Eliot 
and  graduated  from  Harvard  College  in  1673; 
preached  in  various  churches  and  settled  over 
Chebacco  parish  (now  Essex),  Ipswich  in  1680; 
chaplain  in  King  Philip's  War  and  in  the  dis- 
astrous expedition  to  Quebec.  John  Wise 
possessed  robust  manhood;  strong  in  physique 
(famous  as  a  wrestler  in  his  youth) ;  vigorous 
in  mind,  with  large  capacity  for  convincing 

223 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

argument  and  keen  satire;  an  intense  hater  of 
injustice  and  tyranny,  but  with,  broad  and  tender 
sympathies;  gifted  with  abounding  humor; 
writing  the  first  pages  in  New  England  possess- 
ing high  literary  quality ;  advocating,  with  great 
eloquence,  freedom  and  equality  in  both  Church 
and  State. 

John  Wise  deserves  our  gratitude,  especially 
for  three  things: — 

(1)  When  Governor  Andros  tyrannically 
levied  a  tax  on  the  towns  of  the  Colony  (1687) 
without  consulting  the  General  Court,  he  so 
eloquently  urged  the  town  meeting  at  Ipswich 
to  resist  payment  that  a  vote  to  that  effect  was 
passed,  and  the  example  was  followed  by  other 
towns.  For  this  he  was  arrested,  denied  habeas 
corpus,  tried,  fined,  dispossessed  of  his  office  as 
minister  and  put  under  heavy  bonds  to  keep 
the  peace.  He  was  the  first  man  in  our  land  to 
suffer  for  advocating  the  principle,  *^No  taxa- 
tion without  representation,'^  which  was  the 
point  at  issue  in  the  Revolution  a  hundred 
years  later. 

(2)  In  1705,  certain  ministers  in  and  about 
Boston  began  to  feel  that  religion  was  declin- 
ing and  that  to  save  the  churches  a  stronger 
government  must  be  devised  to  keep  watch  over 
their  affairs.  Their  alarm  arose  from  various 
facts:  Elders  were  disappearing  from  some 
churches  and  in  others  they  were  dormant; 
the  Half -Way  Covenant  had  overloaded  many 

224 


The  Contribution  of  America 

churches  with  ivorldly  people ;  there  were  many 
cases  of  church  disorder  which  ought  to  be 
suppressed  with  a  firm  hand.  As  a  remedy, 
they  issued  Sixteen  Proposals.  This  document, 
in  brief,  proposed  two  innovations :  A  standing 
committee  of  ministers  to  exercise  authority 
over  clerical  matters;  and,  an  established  dis- 
trict conference  to  pass  final  judgment  upon 
troubles  within  and  between  churches.  This 
was,  as  President  Ezra  Stiles  of  Yale  College 
charged  against  the  Mathers  (Increase  and 
Cotton),  an  attempt  *Ho  presbyterianize  the 
New  England  Churches''  (Diary,  I.,  37,  Feb. 
18, 1770). 

Here  was  something  new  and  dangerous  in 
Congregationalism.  This  John  Wise  saw  with 
clearness,  and  from  his  study  in  1710,  came  a 
booklet  of  152  small  pages  (as  then  printed), 
*'The  Churches'  Quarrel  Espoused,"  which 
destroyed  these  ^^ Proposals"  and  put  an  end 
to  the  danger.  Not  only  was  the  independence 
of  the  local  congregation  defended,  the  democ- 
racy of  the  church  was  placed  upon  a  broader 
and  firmer  foundation  than  ever  before:  Con- 
gregational Polity  here  received  its  final  form. 
The  praise  of  Prof.  Moses  Coit  Tyler  is  de- 
served: *^A  book  that  by  its  learning,  logic, 
sarcasm,  humor,  invective,  its  consuming  ear- 
nestness, its  vision  of  great  truths,  its  flashes 
of  triumphant  eloquence,  simply  annihilated 
the  scheme  which  it  assailed.  ...  It  is,  of  its 

225 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

kind,  a  work  of  art.  ...  It  is  a  piece  of  tri- 
Timphant  logic,  brightened  by  wit,  and  ennobled 
by  imagination,  a  master  specimen  of  public 
controversy"  (His.  Am.  Lit.  II.,  106-110). 

The  argument  need  not  even  be  summarized 
here.  But  a  few  illustrative  sentences  will  be 
of  interest:  *^The  scheme  seems  to  be  the 
spectre  or  ghost  of  Presbyterianism  .  .  .  there 
is  something  considerable  of  prelacy  in  it." 
He  resents  the  implied  autocracy:  **It  smells 
very  strong  of  the  infallible  chair."  He  re- 
turns to  the  same  idea  again:  *^It  smells  so 
strong  of  the  pope's  cooks  and  kitchen  .  .  . 
that  they  are  enough  to  strangle  a  free-born 
Englishman,  and  much  more  these  churches, 
that  have  lived  in  such  a  clear  air  and  under 
such  enlargements  so  long  a  time.  .  .  .  They 
have  out-poped  the  pope  himself."  He  points 
out  the  inevitable  consequences:  **Let  the 
churches  be  plucked  and  deplumed  as  the  Pro- 
posals intend,  and  they  are,  after  the  possess- 
ing a  fair  estate,  become  bankrupts."  And 
why?  The  scheme  ^4s  very  dishonorable,  and 
also  a  very  unreasonable  encroachment  upon 
the  officers  and  government  of  the  churches." 
.  .  .  Again:  ^^Take  away  these  high  preroga- 
tives from  the  churches  [the  right  to  manage 
their  own  affairs],  and  you  take  away  their 
being. ' '  Another  statement  lifts  the  discussion 
to  a  wider  plane:  ^^Let  it  be  considered, 
whether  it  is  not  great  intellectual  weakness, 

226 


The  Contribution  of  America 

or  want  of  policy,  for  one  generation  to  con- 
trive needless  loads  for  the  next,  especially 
when  they  may  get  as  well  to  heaven  without 
carrying  such  packs  along  the  roadT'  There 
spoke  the  spirit  of  John  Robinson!  There  was 
manifested  and  fulfilled  the  Pilgrim  Spirit! 

(3)  This  biting  satire  accomplished  its  pur- 
pose. But  John  Wise  continued  to  be  inter- 
ested in  the  general  subject.  The  product  of 
his  thought  and  study,  he  published  in  a  second 
small  book,  in  1717;  ^*A  Vindication  of  the 
Government  of  New  England  Churches.*'  The 
power  and  clearness  of  his  mind,  the  breadth 
and  nobility  of  his  spirit,  are  shown  in  the  large 
way  in  which  he  approached  the  subject.  He 
first  addressed  himself  to  a  discussion  of  the 
general  principles  of  government.  This  he  did 
in  the  thirty  and  more  pages  of  Demonstration 
II., — one-third  of  the  book.  And  it  would  be 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  in  the  same 
space  in  any  book  in  any  language  an  equal 
amount  of  wisdom  respecting  the  true  basis, 
method,  and  spirit  of  civil  government. 

He  held  that  governments  should  be  based  on 
three  fundamental  principles  which  are  essen- 
tial elements  of  human  nature:  (1)  **The  dic- 
tates of  right  reason  founded  iu  the  soul  of 
man'*;  again,  **The  dictates  of  right  reason 
excited  by  the  moving  suggestions  of  human- 
ity.*' (2)  **An  original  liberty  enstamped 
upon  his  rational  nature.     He  that  intrudes 

227 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

upon  this  liberty  violates  this  law  of  nature. 
.  .  .  Those  persons  only  who  live  in  obedience 
to  reason  are  worthy  to  be  accounted  free. 
.  .  .  And  so  every  man  must  be  conceived  to  be 
perfectly  in  his  own  power  and  disposal,  and 
not  to  be  controlled  by  the  authority  of  any 
other.  And  therefore  considering  all  men  thus 
at  liberty,  every  man  has  a  prerogative  to  judge 
for  himself,  namely,  what  shall  be  most  for 
his  behoof,  happiness,  and  well-being.''  The 
gospel  of  human  liberty,  appealing  to  *Hhe 
laws  of  nature,''  and  to  ^^the  dictates  of  right 
reason."  (3)  ^^An  equality  amongst  men.  .  .  . 
Every  man  must  be  acknowledged  equal  to 
every  other  man.  ...  It  follows  as  a  command 
of  the  law  of  nature  that  every  man  esteem  and 
treat  another  as  one  who  is  naturally  his  equal, 
or  who  is  a  man  as  well  as  he.  .  .  .  All  men  are 
born  free,  and  nature  having  set  all  men  upon 
a  level  and  made  them  equals,  no  servitude  or 
subjection  can  be  conceived  without  in- 
equality." No  wonder  that  a  book  with  such 
teachings  was  in  demand  in  America  in  1772! 
Glorious  sentences  written  nearly  a  generation 
before  Jefferson  was  born. 

There  is  room  here  for  only  three  other 
quotations :  ^ '  A  civil  state  is  a  compound  moral 
person,  whose  will  is  the  will  of  all,  to  the  end 
it  may  use  and  apply  the  strength  and  riches 
of  private  persons  toward  maintaining  the 
common  peace,  security,  and  well-being  of  all, 

228 


The  Contribution  of  America 

which  may  be  conceived  as  though  the  whole 
state  was  now  become  but  one  man," — an 
anticipation  in  a  way  of  Comte  and  Spencer. 
Again:  **The  first  human  subject  and  original 
of  civil  power  is  the  people.  .  .  .  The  formal 
reason  of  government  is  the  will  of  the 
community.  ...  A  democracy  is  a  very  hon- 
orable and  regular  government  according 
to  the  dictates  of  right  reason  .  .  .  which 
the  light  of  nature  does  highly  value  and 
often  directs  as  most  agreeable  to  the  just  and 
natural  prerogatives  of  human  beings."  For 
the  following  sentence  alone,  John  Wise 
deserves  to  be  canonized  as  one  of  the  chief 
political  saints  of  America:  **The  end  of  all 
good  government  is  to  cultivate  humanity  and 
promote  the  happiness  of  all,  and  the  good  of 
every  man  in  all  his  rights,  his  life,  liberty, 
estate,  honor,  without  injury  or  abuse  done  to 
any."  After  reading  these  brilliant  sentences, 
every  one  will  gladly  admit  that  no  other  colo- 
nial writer  was  his  equal  in  the  combination  of 
cogent  argument,  greatness  of  thought,  nobility 
of  sentiment,  and  splendor  of  diction. 

Then  he  proceeds  to  apply  these  principles 
to  the  Church,  contending  that  all  the  reasons 
for  democracy  in  the  State  are  applicable  to  the 
Church,  making  every  local  congregation  in- 
dependent and  all  its  members  equal.  There- 
fore councils  have  consultative  but  not  judicial 
power.    He  drove  the  thought  of  ** authority" 

229 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

completely  out  of  religion.  He  did  not  specifi- 
cally discuss  the  problem  of  religious  freedom, 
or  the  relation  of  Church  and  State.  He  did 
not  have  to  do  so:  His  general  conclusions 
respecting  democracy,  as  applied  to  both 
politics  and  religion  made  that  unnecessary. 
If  secular  and  spiritual  affairs  are  organized 
as  he  advocated,  intolerance  and  persecution 
must  cease,  being  contrary  to  human  welfare 
and  right  reason.  But  his  passing  allusions  to 
Smithfield  and  ^*ten  bloody  persecutions'' 
show  how  strongly  he  was  devoted  to  ^*  soul- 
liberty.''  Also,  his  brief  but  crushing  reply  to 
the  criticism  of  Brownism  as  **  abhorred  anar- 
chy," proves  that  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  original  Separatist  came  to  full  expression 
in  him  and  that  he  gave  complete  expression  to 
the  Pilgrim  Ideal. 
^  Therefore,  John  Wise  did  vastly  more  than 
merely  to  put  an  end  to  the  *  ^  Proposals. ' '  The 
influence  of  his  writings  was  creative,  not  only 
in  the  realm  of  church  polity,  but  in  the  larger 
field  of  religious  life  and  thought.  The  move- 
ment toward  a  hierarchy  in  New  England  was 
nipped  in  the  bud,  and  the  freedom  of  the  local 
churches  was  placed  upon  a  secure  foundation. 
His  exposition  of  Congregational  Polity  be- 
came final  authority  in  civil  court  and  church 
conference.  But  more  than  this:  He  not  only 
kept  the  door  of  religious  progress  wide  open, 
but  he  also  imparted  the  mighty  impulses  of 

230 


The  Contribution  of  America 

democratic  principles  to  Church  and  State. 
His  masterful  appeal  to  ^Hhe  right  reason  im- 
planted in  the  nature  of  man"  was  a  mighty 
solvent  of  dogma  and  privilege  in  both  politics 
and  theology.  It  provided  a  new  method  of 
approach  to  all  religious  problems.  It  was  an 
imperative  challenge  to  progress  in  religious 
thought.  Had  it  not  been  for  him,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  such  teachers  of  liberal  religion  as 
Chauncy  and  Channing,  Bushnell  and  Munger 
would  ever  have  arisen  in  America. 

(4)  But  John  Wise  must  be  honored  for  even 
larger  things  than  these.  He  became  a  power- 
ful influence  in  the  making  of  our  national  life. 
He  was  called  up  from  the  grave  to  train  and 
inspire  the  patriots  who  fought  at  Lexington, 
Concord,  and  Bunker  Hill.  His  two  booklets 
were  printed  in  one  volume  and  put  into  their 
hands  as  the  authoritative  Textbook  of 
American  Liberty.  During  the  year  1772  the 
Boston  Evening  Post,  the  leading  patriot 
journal  of  New  England,  contained  many  ref- 
erences to  the  republication  of  the  writings  of 
John  Wise:  repeated  advertisements,  notices 
to  subscribers,  commendations  by  editorials 
and  by  letters  from  correspondents,  and  also 
statements  respecting  a  second  edition.  A 
long  article  in  the  issue  for  March  16  commends 
^^that  valuable  book,''  and  advises  people  to 
read  it  carefully,  because  in  it  *  ^  the  true  funda- 
mentals of  our  civil  Liberties  and  Privileges 

231 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

are  very  judiciously  investigated/'  This  was 
the  only  book  mentioned  by  the  Post  during  the 
whole  year. 

Thus,  when  the  struggle  with  England  came, 
the  words  of  John  Wise  were  like  fuel  upon  the 
altars  of  American  Patriotism.  By  a  true 
instinct,  the  people  turned  to  his  eloquent  and 
powerful  advocacy  of  democracy  for  inspira- 
tion in  the  time  of  crisis.  The  books  were 
caught  up  by  eager  hands  as  they  came  from 
the  press  and  given  the  widest  possible  circula- 
tion. A  second  edition  soon  followed  the  first. 
The  names  in  the  subscription  list  present  a 
significant  display  of  the  patriotic  leaders  of 
the  Colony:  leading  ministers,  merchants, 
teachers,  public  officials,  and  military  officers. 
In  these  pages  they  found  the  spiritual  ammu- 
nition which  enabled  them  to  fight  their  battle 
for  American  Liberty.  Far  and  wide  the  in- 
fluence spread,  and  his  great  sentences  respect- 
ing freedom  and  equality  were  incorporated 
into  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

These  words  were  put  by  his  loving  parish- 
ioners on  the  monument  over  his  grave  (died 
in  1725)  :— 

"  For  Talents,  Piety,  and  Learning,  he  shone 
As  a  star  of  the  first  magnitude." 

This  statement  is  no  mere  exaggeration,  so 
characteristic  of  monumental  inscriptions;  of 
a  truth,  he  did  for  years  shine  far  and  wide  as 

232 


The  Contribution  of  America 

a  brilliant  flame  of  healing  and  creative  light. 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  such  ^*a  star''  has  so 
long  been  in  eclipse.  In  these  days  so  near  the 
bicentenary  of  the  pnblicaition  of  his  ^*  Vindica- 
tion,'' with  its  emphasis  on  the  dictates  -of 
right  reason  in  the  nature  of  man;  with  its 
powerful  pleas  for  freedom,  equality,  and 
humanity ;  and  with  its  eloquent  expositions  of 
democratic  principles,  we  may  well  cherish  the 
hope  that  his  star  will  reappear  and  shine  once 
more  upon  the  earth ! 

In  the  pages  of  John  Wise,  the  New  Testa- 
ment method  discovered  by  Robert  Browne,  the 
Independency  advocated  by  Cromwell,  Milton, 
Locke,  and  Priestley,  the  Congregational  Ideal 
of  Robinson  and  the  Pilgrims  was  fully  real- 
ized. The  historic  evolution  was  completed. 
The  separation  of  Church  and  State  was  im- 
plied as  a  necessity,  and  each  being  a  democ- 
racy, the  Martyrdom  of  Man  must  cease  and 
freedom  must  become  the  rule  of  life  in  both 
civil  and  religious  affairs.  All  that  was  now 
needed  to  make  the  Contribution  of  America 
complete  was  to  put  these  teachings  into  prac- 
tice: to  abolish  all  laws  and  customs  contrary 
to  them,  to  incorporate  them  into  the  sentiment 
and  conduct  of  the  people,  and  to  make  them 
fundamental  in  the  organic  laws  and  govern- 
mental policies  of  the  land. 

How  ithe  struggles  of  the  Colonies  during 
the  Revolution  brought  these  important  results 

233 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

about  is  briefly  described  in  the  Appendix: 
Keligious  Freedom  in  Five  Colonies.  The  topic 
has  not  received  the  attention  which  it  deserves. 
The  structural  products  of  this  general  move- 
ment, as  embodied  in  our  Constitutions, 
Federal  and  State,  must  here  be  given  brief 
attention.  In  these  basic  documents  of  our 
civilization,  we  find  the  fruitage  of  the  Pilgrim 
Spirit,  which,  finally  made  itself  felt  in  other 
Colonies  and  spread  as  a  creative  influence 
from  many  centers  besides  Plymouth. 


IX 

A  push  for  liberty  in  one  direction  carries 
/  men  toward  freedom  in  other  directions. 
Those  who  struggle  for  their  political  liberties, 
naturally  seek  to  be  free  in  their  worship,  their 
labor,  their  investigation.  The  American  Rev- 
olution was  chiefly  an  assault  upon  privilege 
and  despotism  in  matters  of  civil  government, 
with  a  demand  for  political  rights.  In  all  the 
Colonies,  however,  especially  among  the  plain 
people,  there  was  unrest  concerniug  religious 
conditions;  while  in  some,  notably  in  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia,  there  was  a  strong 
popular  feeling  for  religious  as  well  as  political 
freedom. 

The  inevitable  reactions  of  the  revolutionary 

struggle  were  all  in  favor  of  ^Hhe  utmost  lib- 

^     erty  of  religious  thought  within  the  churches'' 

234 


The  Contribution  of  America 

(Bolles,  Hist.  Penna.,  423).  An  irresistible 
demand  arose  for  the  abolition  of  all  state 
restrictions  upon  worship  and  belief:  the  de- 
struction of  ecclesiastical  privileges.  Men  who 
had  won  their  civil  rights  at  a  great  sacrifice, 
could  not  be  expected  to  tolerate  the  interfer- 
ence of  priest  or  magistrate  respecting  their 
private  religious  opinions.  A  free  conscience 
in  one  direction  meant  a  free  conscience  in  all 
directions.  This  is  why  the  people  in  Virginia 
and  North  Carolina  gave  this  matter  imme- 
diate attention  as  soon  as  the  call  to  arms  came. 
When  the  problem  of  a  National  Grovernment 
began  to  be  seriously  considered,  the  question 
of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State  had  to  be 
faced.  But  none  were  in  favor  of  a  national 
establishment  of  religion.  The  logic  of  events, 
the  universal  conditions  which  then  existed, 
made  that  impossible.  The  first  decisive  action 
taken  in  this  direction  was  by  the  Continental 
Congress  near  the  end  of  its  existence.  Its 
declaration  respecting  religious  liberty  is 
found  in  Article  I.  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
creating  the  Northwest  Territory  (passed 
July  13),  which  reads:  **No  person  demeaning 
himself  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner, 
shall  ever  be  molested  on  account  of  his  mode 
of  worship  or  religious  sentiments  in  the  said 
territory.''  This  broad  provision  was  due  to 
the  very  remarkable  man  who  shaped  that 
document.  Rev.  Manasseh  Cutler,  minister  at 

235 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Ipswich,  Mass.,  who  had  been  a  subscriber  to 
the  edition  of  John  Wise's  Writings,  issued  in 
1772,  and  who  had  been  inspired  by  his  power- 
ful democratic  spirit. 

There  were  differences  of  opinion  among  the 
members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
(1787), — not  on  the  general  principle  of  relig- 
ious freedom, — ^but  respecting  the  necessity  or 
advisability  of  making  any  statement  whatever 
in  the  Constitution  on  the  subject.  James 
Madison  made  himself  felt  in  favor  of  some 
definite  expression.  But  it  was  Gen.  Charles 
C.  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina  (an  Episcopa- 
lian), who  presented  the  statement  (Aug.  30) 
which  went  into  the  Constitution  by  unanimous 
vote,  as  Section  3  of  Article  VI.,  and  which 
reads  as  follows:  *^No  religious  test  shall  ever 
be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or 
public  trust  under  the  United  States. ' '  He  had 
used  similar  language  in  the  Draft  of  a  Con- 
stitution which  he  had  early  presented  to  the 
Convention  (Elliot,  ^ ^Debates,''  I.  277). 

However,  iii  the  discussions  respecting  the 
Constitution  in  the  State  Conventions  and  in 
the  public  prints,  it  was  generally  admitted 
that  an  amendment  must  be  added,  defining  and 
guaranteeing  religious  liberty  more  clearly 
and  more  positively.  Urgent  resolutions  to 
this  effect  were  passed  by  the  Conventions  of 
Virginia,  New  York,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode 
Island,  North  Carolina:  in  various  cases,  the 

236 


The  Contribution  of  America 

Constitution  was  adopted  only  on  the  promise 
that  snch  a  step  would  be  immediately  taken. 
In  this  movement,  as  might  be  expected, 
Madison  was  the  leader.  The  first  Amendment 
to  be  added  to  the  Constitution  (adopted  1791) 
contains  these  words:  ** Congress  shall  make 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion 
or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof. ' '  This 
meant  absolute  separation  of  Church  and  State, 
so  far  as  the  Federal  Government  is  concerned. 

Nothing,  however,  in  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, even  as  amended,  prohibits  the  States 
from  having  an  Established  Church.  But  all 
the  State  Constitutions  do  contain  such  pro- 
hibitions. Our  greatest  authority.  Judge 
Cooley,  gives  this  clear  and  comprehensive 
summary  of  the  things  that  are  unlawful  under 
all  our  Constitutions  (Constitutional  Limita- 
tions: 575) : 

^^(1)  Any  law  respecting  an  establishment 
of  religion. 

(2)  Compulsory  support  by  taxation  or 
otherwise  of  religious  instruction. 

(3)  Compulsory  attendance  upon  religious 
worship. 

(4)  Restraints  upon  the  free  exercise  of 
religion  according  to  the  dictates  of  the  con- 
science. 

(5)  Restraints  upon  the  expression  of  re- 
ligious belief.'' 

While  these  laws  are  very  clear  and  positive, 
237 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

;  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  they  are,  even  at  the 
present  time,  being  ignored  or  violated,  to  some 
extent,  in  many  places  under  ecclesiastical 
pressure  and  political  connivance. 
In  a  few  states,  even  today,  there  survive  a 
/'  few  remnants  of  the  times  when  the  Martyr- 
dom of  Man  was  a  grim  reality:  remnants 
which  the  Pilgrim  Spirit  has  not  completely 
destroyed.  For  instance:  In  the  constitutions 
of  Maryland,  Delaware,  Tennessee,  Kentucky, 
ministers  of  all  churches  are  ineligible  to  civil 
office.  In  Pennsylvania,  office  holding  is  lim- 
ited to  those  who  believe  in  God  and  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  In  Missis- 
sippi, Tennessee,  and  Maryland,  atheists  are 
still  disqualified  from  holding  office.  The  same 
is  true  in  North  Carolina,  although  the  consti- 
tu^tion  of  the  state  at  the  same  time  strangely 
forbids  the  application  of  religious  tests !  But 
these  limitations  in  the  laws  are  generally 
ignored  in  the  actual  affairs  of  these  common- 
wealths. 


Madison,  in  writing  to  his  friend,  Judge 
Livingston  (July  10,  1822),  described  the  result 
of  over  forty  years  of  experience  in  Virginia, 
after  the  separation  of  Church  and  State,  in 
these  words:  *^It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  [in 
Virginia]  religion  prevails  with  more  zeal  and 
a  more  exemplary  priesthood  than  it  ever  did 

238 


The  Contribution  of  America 

when  established  and  patronized  by  public 
authority.  We  are  teaching  the  world  the  great 
truth  that  governments  do  better  without  kings 
and  nobles  than  with  them.  The  merit  will  be 
doubled  by  the  other  lesson:  That  religion 
flourishes  in  greater  purity  without  than  with 
the  aid  of  government."  A  significant  and 
prophetic  statement. 

Our  Nation  has  demonstrated  on  a  large  scale 
during  four  generations,  the  following  great 
truths:  The  interests  of  piety  are  most  pros- 
perous where  religion  is  left  to  make  its  own 
way,  on  its  own  merits,  by  its  own  authority. 
Under  these  conditions,  it  is  purer,  stronger, 
more   spiritual   and  more   fruitful  than   any- 
where else.    Under  the  voluntary  system,  as  in  y^ 
our  country,  the  contributions  for  the  support  ^ 
of  religion  are  larger,  per  capita,  than  in  any 
other    land.     Religious    sentiment    expresses 
itself  in  missions,  schools,  philanthropies,  as 
nowhere  else  in  the  world.     There  are  fewer 
hypocrites  within  and  fewer  enemies  without  , 
the  Church  under  this  policy  than  elsewhere. 
Where  Church  and  State  are  separated,  piety 
is  free  from  political  corruption  and  politics    . 
from  sectarian  passion. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  and  beneficent 
movements  of  the  last  hundred  years  has  been 
the  progess  of  the  world  in  the  direction  of  the 
American  Ideal:  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State.     Great  historic  forces  which  early 

239 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

pushed  Independents  and  Pilgrims  along  this 
highway  have  been  operating  powerfully  and 
widely  in  many  lands.  But  beside  these  gen- 
eral influences,  the  example  of  America  has 
made  everywhere  a  profound  impression:  it 
has  been  a  veritable  providential  dispensation. 
It  has  helped  to  lift  many  peoples  toward  the 
high  level  of  religious  freedom.  Wherever  the 
experiment  has  been  tried,  even  in  a  slight 
degree,  the  results  have  shown  a  rich  harvest 
of  human  good:  religion  itself  has  prospered 
more  abundantly.  The  Episcopal  Church  in 
Ireland  has  grown  more  since  it  was  dis-estab- 
lished  in  1869,  than  ever  before:  more  than 
Episcopacy  anywhere  else  in  the  British  Isles. 
The  influence  of  America  may  be  seen  even 
where  the  complete  religious  regeneration  has 
not,  as  yet,  appeared.  A  brief  reference  may 
well  be  made  here  to  two  nations  where  this 
influence  has  been  felt  most  decisively.  As 
soon  as  the  unity  of  Italy  was  accomplished, 
the  government  of  Victor  Emanuel  sent  this 
decree  to  all  its  diplomatic  agents  (Oct.  18, 
1870):  **  Compulsion  as  to  matters  of  faith, 
rejected  by  all  modern  states,  found,  in  the 
temporal  power  [of  the  pope],  its  last  asylum. 
Henceforth  every  appeal  to  the  secular  sword 
will  be  suppressed  at  Eome,  and  the  Church 
will  profit  in  its  turn  by  freedom.  Freed  from 
embarrassments  and  the  transitory  necessities 
of  politics,  the  religious  authority  will  find  in 

240 


The  Contribution  of  America 

the  respectful  adhesion  of  the  consciences  of 
men,  its  true  sovereignty/'  As  Madison  pre- 
dicted, our  Nation  had  helped  to  teach  Italy 
this  important  lesson. 

The  most  impressive  demonstration  has  been 
made  in  France.  After  long  agitation  and 
many  bitter  conflicts,  the  convictions  of  the 
French  people  came  to  expression  in  the  Law 
of  December,  1905,  which  made  the  separation 
of  Church  and  State  absolute:  **The  Eepublic 
assures  liberty  of  conscience  and  guarantees 
the  free  practice  of  religions  (Chap.  I.,  Art.  1). 
.  .  .  The  public  religious  establishments  are 
hereby  suppressed''  (Chap.  L,  Art.  II).  What 
one  of  the  most  eminent  French  writers  fore- 
told (1906),  experience  has  confirmed:  *^ There 
will  then  be  a  new  Catholicism,  in  which 
earnestness,  hard  work,  manliness,  love  will  be 
the  supreme  virtues;  a  Catholicism  which  will 
resemble  the  old  no  more  than  the  butterfly 
resembles  the  chrysalis;  and  yet,  it  will  be  the 
old,  and  will  be  able  tomorrow  to  emblazon  on 
the  pediments  of  its  temples  the  words  of  the 
Galilean:  ^I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil'  "  (Paul  Sabatier  in  ^^Disestablishment 
in  France,"  138).  In  the  present  world-crisis, 
the  French  people  have  astonished  all  nations 
and  won  universal  praise.  The  ^  *  separation " 
that  was  expected  to  destroy,  has  enabled  them 
to  write  ** victory"  with  their  life-blood  upon 
the  altars  of  a  nobler  and  larger  Faith ! 

241 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

XI 

Both  extreme  praise  and  severe  censure  have 
been  bestowed  upon  the  Mayflower  Band.  But 
exaggeration  in  either  direction  is  unfortunate. 
A  correct  estimate  of  their  achievement  is, 
however,  important.  And  yet,  the  chief  thing 
is  not  so  much  to  honor  them,  as  to  understand 
wherein  their  true  greatness  lay,  to  learn  the 
lesson  of  their  endeavor,  and  to  lay  to  heart 
ourselves  the  principles  which  they  so  nobly 
exemplified.  To  admit  that  they  had  faults 
and  limitations  is  simply  to  accept  them  as 
human.  It  is  clear  that  they  were  not  always 
obedient  to  their  ^^ heavenly  vision.'*  They  did 
not  fully  realize  all  the  implications  of  their 
central  doctrines.  There  was  more  in  their 
venture  than  they  themselves  understood.  But 
these  necessary  qualifications  should  not  lessen 
our  appreciation  of  their  own  worth  or  of  the  - 
value  of  their  contributions  to  civilization. 

What  we  see  is  this :  In  an  age  when  Europe 
was  engaged  in  the  Martyrdom  of  Man,  the 
Pilgrims  keenly  felt  the  horror  of  the  persecu- 
tion of  heretics  and  withheld  their  hands  from 
such  cruelties.  "When  magistrates  dictated  in 
matters  of  faith  and  worship,  they  demanded 
that  the  State  retire  from  all  attempts  to 
supervise  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  When 
priests,  prelates,  and  presbyters  forcibly  im- 
posed their  opinions  upon  men,  they  asserted 

242 


The  Contribution  of  America 

the  inalienable  right  of  the  soul  to  think  and 
feel  as  reason  and  conscience  dictate.  When 
Church  and  State  united  to  impose  creeds  and 
rituals  as  finalities,  they  pleaded  that  the  way- 
be  kept  open  for  discovery  and  progress. 
When  churches  everywhere  were  crowded  with 
the  ungodly,  subjected  to  political  and  ecclesi- 
astical passions,  and  restrained  by  tradition 
and  authority  from  the  freedom  of  life  under 
Christ  alone,  they  insisted  that  the  local  com- 
pany of  devout  believers  alone  constituted  a 
time  church  and  that  its  worth  must  be  solely 
measured  in  terms  of  personal  righteousness. 
Nowhere  else  in  the  world,  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  did  any 
other  body  of  people  so  clearly  see  or  so  faith- 
fully obey  these  supremely  important  prin- 
ciples. 

The  Pilgrims  were  the  first,  on  the  American 
continent,  to  incorporate  these  principles  in  a 
civic  community  and  a  religious  congregation. 
Catholic  conquerors  and  papal  churches  had 
long  been  in  the  lands  farther  south.  But  they 
had  simply  transplanted  ancient  ideals  and 
policies  which  rooted  in  tradition  and  authority 
and  permitted  neither  civil  nor  religious  lib- 
erty. There  were  Protestant  Settlements 
before  the  Landing  on  Plymouth  Rock,  but 
none  were  animated  especially  by  distinctively 
high  religious  ideals  or  consecrated  to  make  an 
experiment  in  civilization  on  the  broad  basis  of 

243 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Democracy  in  both  Church  and  State.  In  view 
of  all  the  adverse  conditions,  it  is  remarkable 
that  this  small  company  of  Separatists  were 
able  to  remain  as  loyal  as  they  did  to  their 
Ideal.  Confronted  by  the  loneliness  of  the 
wilderness;  surrounded  by  communities,  many 
of  whose  people  were  dominated  by  traditional 
views  respecting  Church  and  State  radically 
unlike  their  own  convictions;  menaced  by  in- 
truders who  despised  their  cherished  princi- 
ples; under  the  jealous  supervision  of  a  home 
government  in  Britain  unfriendly  to  their  own 
central  purposes, — ^nevertheless  these  sturdy 
pioneers  went  straight  forward  in  remarkable 
loyalty  to  the  impulses  which  originally  ani- 
mated them. 
(^  The  Pilgrim  Glory  consists  in  the  originality 
and  loftiness  of  conception,  the  humanity  of 
j  ,spirit,  the  fidelity  in  execution,  the  breadth  and 
jf  permanence  of  influence  which  characterized 
the  experiment  which  these  people  carried  to  a 
successful  realization.  No  other  company  in 
that  age,  though  many  times  its  size,  held  in 
trust  such  valuable  political  and  spiritual 
treasures.  No  other  exhibited  so  large  a  de- 
gree of  fidelity  in  life  to  principles  professed. 
No  other  made  so  profound  and  creative  an 
impression  upon  the  course  of  human  events  on 
this  continent.  No  other  continued  to  exist 
until  its  Ideal  became  the  working  method  of 
a  great  Nation. 

244 


The  Contribution  of  America 

All  that  is  great  and  good  in  American  life 
is  not  by  any  means  due  to  the  Pilgrims.  Many 
others  have  co-operated  in  the  making  of  our 
civilization.  Contributions  have  flowed  in  from 
English  Commonwealth  and  Dutch  Republic, 
from  French  Huguenots  and  Scotch  Presbyte- 
rians, from  Quakers  and  Baptists.  Many  im- 
portant contributions, — historic  characters  and 
heroic  deeds, — have  been  produced  through  the 
experiences  of  other  peoples  in  various  parts 
of  our  country.  But  those  earnest  pioneers  at 
Plymouth  were  the  first  to  establish  success- 
fully on  these  shores  a  community  which  in- 
corporated the  civic  and  religious  principles 
and  policies  which  are  now  the  central  and 
dominant  forces  in  American  Civilization. 
Very  much  was,  indeed,  done  by  others,  but  the 
best  and  most  enduring  achievements  every- 
where were,  in  the  early  days,  along  the  line 
of  that  which  was  fundamental  in  their  enter- 
prise. And  the  greatest  contribution,  which 
this  Nation,  in  later  years,  has  made  to  the 
whole  world,  has  been  the  influence  which  it  has 
been  able  to  exert  in  other  lands,  in  stopping 
the  Martyrdom  of  Man  which  they  condemned, 
and  winning  the  victory  for  religious  freedom 
in  which  they  believed  and  for  which  they 
sacrificed. 


245 


APPENDIX 

Eeligious  Freedom  in  Five  American  Colonies : 


I. 

Maryland. 

II. 

New  York. 

III. 

Pennsylvania. 

IV. 

North  Carolina, 

V. 

Virginia. 

APPENDIX 

RELIGIOUS  FREEDOM   IN  FIVE   AMERICAN  COLONIES 

In  the  histories  of  all  the  American  Colonies  there  is 
much  about  religion  that  is  interesting.  But  it  is  un- 
necessary to  attempt  here  a  survey  of  all  these  fields.  As 
many  facts  respecting  Massachusetts  and  some  references 
to  Rhode  Island  have  already  been  given,  brief  mention 
of  important  conditions  in  Maryland,  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, North  Carolina,  and  Virginia  will  now  be  made. 
Other  Colonies  present  important  facts,  but  these  are  par- 
ticularly instructive  on  account  of  special  prominence  and 
peculiar  features. 

MARYLAND 

Many  eminent  Catholics  like  Cardinal  Gibbons  have 
asserted  that  "this  Colony  of  British  Catholics  was  the 
first  to  establish  on  American  soU  the  blessings  of  civic 
and  religious  liberty  (1908)."  This  is  a  very  erroneous 
and  misleading  statement.  Some  things  in  the  early  set- 
tlement of  that  Colony  are  uncertain,  but  the  main  facts 
are  perfectly  clear,  (a)  George  Calvert,  first  Lord  Balti- 
more, prepared  the  Charter,  which  was  issued  on  June  20, 
1632,  a  few  weeks  after  his  death.  It  contains  absolutely 
nothing  about  civil  or  religious  liberty.  It  does,  however, 
state  that  "all  churches"  within  that  region  shall  be  "con- 
secrated according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws"  of  England: 
the  Anglican  Church.  This  provision  precluded  the  pos- 
sibility of  religious  liberty. 

249 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

(b)  Baltimore  had  publicly  declared  himself  a  Catholic 
eight  years  before,  and  he  had  probably  been  a  Catholic 
some  time  previous  to  that  date.  His  son,  Cecil,  who  suc- 
ceeded him  as  second  Lord  Baltimore  and  Proprietor  of 
Maryland,  had  married  a  Catholic.  Cecil  Calvert  repeat- 
edly promised  toleration  to  the  settlers  of  Maryland,  and 
he  kept  his  promises.  Whatever  his  private  opinion  may 
have  been,  this  was  a  political  and  economic  necessity.  On 
no  other  condition  could  a  charter  have  been  obtained  from 
the  Protestant  English  government.  The  first  intimation 
that  we  have  of  his  willingness  to  grant  toleration  was 
his  promise  to  Protestants  who  demanded  protection  of 
their  religious  rights  before  they  would  emigrate  to  the  new 
Colony.  His  son,  Charles,  writing  in  1678,  frankly  ac- 
knowledges: "Without  the  complying  with  these  condi- 
tions [the  Protestant  demands  for  toleration],  in  all  proba- 
bility this  province  would  never  have  been  planted." 

As  the  settlers  in  America,  on  both  sides  of  his  grant, 
were  Protestants,  and  as  he  hoped  to  attract  them  to  his 
plantations,  as  he  and  his  representatives  often  tried  to  do, 
he  was  compelled  to  see  to  it  that  their  religion  would  be 
respected.  These  facts  must  be  kept  in  mind,  even  though 
we  grant  that  he  was  genuinely  devoted  to  religious  free- 
dom. To  pass  judgment  upon  his  private  opinion  is  neither 
fair  nor  necessary.  The  doctrine  of  toleration  was  then 
abroad  in  the  world,  and  he  must  have  frequently  met  it 
in  his  Protestant  boyhood.  Two  generations  before,  Wil- 
liam of  Orange,  while  still  a  Catholic,  had  put  it  into 
practice,  and  Sir  Thomas  More,  a  Catholic,  had  eloquently 
advocated  it  more  than  a  century  before  his  day  in 
"Utopia." 

(c)  It  is  not  true,  as  Cardinal  Gibbons  implies,  that 
Maryland  was  specifically  a  "Colony  of  British  Catholics" 
pr  that  they,  of  their  own  accord,  established  civil  and  re- 

250 


Appendia^ 

ligioTis  liberty.  All  the  evidence  shows  this  to  be  untrue, — 
even  the  testimony  of  the  two  Jesuits  among  the  original 
settlers.  Fathers  More  and  White,  writing  some  ten  years 
after  the  settlement,  declared :  "Far  the  greater  part  were 
heretics"!  In  1649,  a  so-called  Toleration  Act  was  passed 
(April  21).  But  certain  facts  must  be  kept  clearly  in 
mind:  1)  The  demand  for  this  Act  did  not  originate  in 
the  Colony,  but  was  imposed  from  abroad  by  Baltimore. 
And  no  wonder.  Cromwell  was  then  in  authority,  and  he 
must  have  been  troubled  by  reports  of  Jesuit  activities  in 
Maryland  and  of  Catholic  intrigues  in  England  looking  in 
that  direction.  Baltimore  had  himself  already  had  serious 
troubles  with  the  Maryland  Jesuits  on  account  of  their 
aggressions.  He  had  been  obliged  to  rebuke  Father  White 
for  his  intolerance  to  Protestants.  He  had  ordered  his 
brother  (1642)  to  arrest,  on  his  arrival  in  America,  a 
Jesuit,  who  had  secretly  sailed  for  Maryland  against  his 
express  command  not  to  do  so.  He  realized  that  there  was 
no  future  for  his  Colony  unless  Protestants  were  fully 
protected. 

(2)  When  the  Act  was  passed  a  Protestant  was  governor 
of  the  Colony :  Captain  William  Stone  had  been  appointed 
in  1647.  The  Assembly  which  passed  it  (16  members)  was 
about  equally  divided  between  Catholics  and  Protestants 
(there  is  uncertainty  at  this  point),  though  the  Protestants 
were  in  a  majority  in  the  plantations. 

(3)  The  Act  did  not  grant  full  religious  freedom,  as 
Cardinal  Gibbons  asserts,  but  only  a  limited  toleration : 
atheists  and  Jews  were  left  unprotected.  Unitarians, — 
aU  those  who  "shaU  deny  the  holy  Trinity,"  .  .  .  "shaU  be 
punished  with  death"  and  confiscation  of  property:  The 
same  penalty  was  prescribed  for  blasphemy.  Severe  penal- 
ties were  imposed  upon  those  who  used  reproachful  words 
against  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary.     In  later  years,  its  pro- 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

visions  were  invoked  to  justify  many  severe  persecutions 
of  the  Quakers.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  Act  deserves  no 
special  praise,  when  we  consider  all  the  conditions  which 
surrounded  its  enactment,  and  also  its  own  provisions.  It 
was  neither  as  good  as  the  best  nor  as  bad  as  the  worst 
along  this  line  in  that  age. 

(d)  One  other  fact  deserves  prominent  attention.  This 
Act  does  not  represent  the  past  or  present  policy  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  Papal  officials  had  nothing  to  do  with 
its  enactment,  and  therefore  cannot  claim  any  credit  for 
its  provisions.  No  Pope  has  to  this  day  commanded  that 
such  a  law  be  passed  by  any  legislative  body.  Where 
Catholic  countries  have  given  religious  freedom  to  its 
peoples,  this  has  in  no  case  been  done  in  obedience  to  a 
command  from  Rome.  These  victories  for  liberty  have 
been  won  against  the  protests  of  its  ecclesiastics.  The 
papal  Syllabus  of  1864  (Pius  IX.)  condemned  "religious 
toleration,"  as  one  of  the  eighty  hateful  heresies  of  the 
age.  We  may  praise  Baltimore,  the  Catholic,  for  his 
tolerance;  but  whatever  he  did  in  this  line  was  con- 
trary to  the  settled  policy  and  general  practice  of  his 
Church. 

Protestants  in  the  Colony  unwisely  set  aside  the  Act  for 
some  four  years  (1654-1658)  and  deprived  Catholics  of 
their  rights.  This  bigotry,  while  in  no  sense  justified,  was 
fostered  by  local  conditions  which  aggravated  the  Prot- 
estant suspicions  of  Catholics.  Political  passions  intensi- 
fied religious  prejudices.  However,  it  is  important  to  bear 
in  mind  that  the  London  Commission,  which  reinstated 
Baltimore  in  his  rights  and  re-established  the  Act  in  1658, 
was  composed  of  Protestants.  As  a  result  of  the  English 
Revolution,  Episcopacy  became  the  Established  Church  of 
Maryland  in  1692.  On  the  whole,  Maryland  made  no 
special  contribution  to  the  cause  of  religious  freedom,  an^ 

252 


Appendiiv 

it  exerted  little  influence  by  its  statutes  or  authors  in  the 
movement  for  the  separation  of  Church  and  State  in 
America. 

NEW  YORK 

For  some  years  after  the  founding  of  New  Netherlands, 
no  religious  services  were  permitted  except  those  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church.  The  Dutch  West  India  Co.,  in 
control  of  the  Colony,  enacted  this  rule,  July  19,  1640: 
"No  other  religion  shall  be  publicly  admitted  in  New 
Netherlands  except  the  Reformed"  (N.  Y.  Ecclesiastical 
Records,  I.,  130).  That  Church  was  supported  by  the  gov- 
ernment. In  1654,  it  was  reported  that  "the  Lutheran 
request  .  .  .  has  been  rejected.  Thus  also  the  way  for 
other  sectarians  has  been  closed  up"  (Id.,  326).  In  1657 
the  home  Company  sent  its  approval  of  this  effort  to  "check 
at  the  beginning  this  toleration  of  all  sorts  of  religion" 
(Id.,  372).  The  following  year,  Rev.  Johannes  Megapo- 
lensis  stated  in  a  letter  (Sept.  24),  that  Quakers  "swarm 
to  and  fro  sowing  their  tares"  (Id.,  433).  In  those  years, 
both  Quakers  and  Baptists  were  often  fined,  imprisoned 
and  whipped.  It  is  surprising  that  the  Dutch  in  the  New 
World  were  so  much  more  intolerant  than  in  Holland  at 
the  same  time,  while  the  English  in  New  England  were 
more  tolerant  than  the  people  in  Great  Britain.  A  power- 
ful influence  in  maintaining  this  narrow  spirit  was,  prob- 
ably, the  fact  that  Peter  Stuyvesant,  an  able  Dutchman, 
who  was  governor  from  1647  to  1664,  was  despotic  and 
intolerant.  Very  soon,  however,  moved  by  economic  rea- 
sons, permission  was  given  (1661)  to  New  Englanders  to 
establish  their  own  church  (Id.,  510). 

The  English  governor.  Col.  Richard  Nicolls,  who  suc- 
ceeded Stuyvesant  and  transformed  New  Amsterdam  into 
New  York,  was  a  man  of  breadth  and  sagacity,  who  had 
lived  much  in  Holland  and  had  imbibed  its  tolerant  spirit 

253 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

as  Ms  predecessor  had  not.  He  came  to  America  with 
secret  instructions  from  the  proprietor,  the  Duke  of  York 
(a  Catholic),  to  avoid  meddling  in  religious  matters.  After 
studying  various  charters  of  New  England  Colonies,  he 
framed  a  code  of  laws  to  which  he  demanded  the  assent 
of  the  representatives  of  the  people  whom  he  called  to  meet 
him  at  Hemstead,  Feb.  28,  1665.  This  code,  known  as 
"The  Duke's  Laws"  (in  honor  of  the  royal  proprietor),  was 
wholly  Nicolls'  work:  not  the  product  of  a  legislative  as- 
sembly. It  represented,  not  the  wishes  of  the  people,  but 
the  mind  of  the  governor.  It  contains  a  declaration  in 
favor  of  toleration,  citizenship  being  based  upon  owner- 
sliip  of  land  and  not  upon  church  membership.  The  pre- 
cise language  of  the  code  in  dealing  with  toleration  is  this 
(Article  10) :  "Nor  shall  any  persons  be  molested,  fined  or 
imprisoned  for  differing  in  judgment  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion, who  profess  Christianity"  (Eccl.  Rec.  I.,  572). 
This  provision  is  much  narrower  than  that  put  about  the 
same  time  into  the  Rhode  Island  Charter.  Article  4 
put  restrictions  upon  preachers. 

This  regulation  meant  very  little  at  that  time  or  even 
later.  In  fact,  the  few  and  scattered  people  of  various 
sects  then  in  that  region  paid  little  attention  to  religion. 
They  were  largely  adventurers  chiefly  intent  on  business 
enterprises.  A  dozen  years  later  (1678)  Gov.  Andros  re- 
ported the  existence  of  only  twenty  meeting  places,  and 
only  half  of  them  had  preachers  (Doc.  Hist.  N.  Y.  I.,  92). 
The  frequent  references  to  the  dilapidated  churches  and 
the  few  ministers  show  that  religion  then  received  little  or 
no  popular  attention.  But  after  Stuyvesant,  the  Dutch 
showed  a  more  liberal  spirit.  They  surrendered  on  con- 
dition that  their  religion  should  be  respected:  a  pledge 
which  the  English  kept,  in  the  main,  for  some  years.  For 
a  time,  the  Dutch  people  and  the  English  Episcopalians 

254 


Appendix 

held  services  in  the  same  meeting  house,  at  different  hours 
on  Sunday.  And  to  their  credit,  it  appears  from  innumer- 
able original  records,  the  Dutch  clergy  exhibited,  with  few 
exceptions,  a  tolerant  spirit  toward  the  Anglicans. 

In  the  Charter  of  1683,  toleration  was  granted  to  all 
who  "profess  faith  in  God  and  Jesus  Christ"  (Eccl.  Rec. 
II.,  864), — somewhat  narrower  conditions  than  those  laid 
down  by  Gov.  NicoUs,  who  had  remained  in  America  only 
a  brief  period.  But  when  the  Duke  of  York  became  king 
in  1685  as  James  II.,  he  vetoed  this  Charter,  which  he  had 
approved  two  years  before.  That  toleration  had  not  as  yet 
taken  a  very  strong  hold  upon  the  people  is  seen  from 
the  fact  that  the  very  next  year  (1686),  Quakers  were 
bitterly  complaining  of  severe  persecutions. 

At  the  time  of  the  English  Revolution,  the  general  pro- 
visions of  the  so-called  Toleration  Act  (1689)  were 
applied  to  the  Colony :  all  but  Papists  were  tolerated.  Then 
came  the  celebrated  "Ministry  Act  of  1693,"  which  pro- 
vided public  support  for  five  "good  sufficient  Protestant 
ministers"  in  four  counties, — from  which  it  is  clear  that 
religion  was  still  receiving  very  slight  attention.  Then 
followed  the  two  special  Charters:  one  in  1696  giving 
certain  privileges  to  the  Dutch  Churches  and  the  other  in 
1697,  giving  special  and  much  larger  privileges  to  Epis- 
copal Churches. 

At  Jamaica,  Gov.  Combury  began,  in  1704,  an  usurpa- 
tion of  authority  and  a  policy  of  favoritism  toward  Epis- 
copal ministers,  which  practically  made  them  the  clergy 
of  an  Established  Church.  He  drove  Hubbard,  an  Inde- 
pendent, out  of  his  church  (1704)  and  caused  an  Episcopal 
Minister,  Urguhart,  to  be  installed  in  his  place.  He  also 
insisted  upon  his  right  to  decide  who  should  be  settled  as 
ministers  over  Dutch  Churches.  The  same  year,  he  directed 
his   secretary,  George   Clark,  to  condemn  the  people  of 

255 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Esopus  bitterly  for  not  supporting  the  Episcopal  minister, 
referring  in  this  connection  to  the  Dutch  minister  as  one 
"who  is  only  tolerated  to  exercise  the  unestahlished  re- 
ligion." The  next  year  (1705),  the  "Ministry  Act"  was 
amended  so  that  public  taxes  were  paid  only  to  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  (Eccl.  Rec.  III.,  1576-1595).  In  line  with 
this  executive  aggression  in  church  matters,  it  is  recorded 
(Id.,  IV.,  2375),  that  in  1727,  the  Dutch  Church  of  the 
town  of  New  York  had  to  ask  Gov.  Burnet  for  permission 
to  build  a  new  church! 

But  the  Revolution  brought  radical  changes  in  religious 
affairs  in  this  as  in  other  Colonies.  The  movement  was 
hastened  by  the  fact  that  by  the  time  Independence  was 
declared  every  Episcopal  minister  had  proved  himself  dis- 
loyal to  the  American  cause.  Such  was  the  admission  of 
Rev.  Charles  Inglis,  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  in  a 
letter  written  Oct.  31,  1776  (Id.  VI.,  4292).  It  was  not 
surprising,  therefore,  that  the  Convention  which  framed 
the  Constitution  of  1777,  for  the  free  State  of  New  York, 
repealed  the  Ministry  Act  of  1693  and  inserted  in  that 
document  these  words  (Art.  XXXVIII) :  "Ordain,  deter- 
mine, and  declare  that  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of 
religious  profession  and  worship  without  discrimination 
or  preference  shall  forever  hereafter  be  allowed  within  this 
State  to  all  mankind"  (Id.  VI.,  4300). 

In  the  history  of  New  York,  during  both  the  Dutch  and 
the  English  Colonial  periods,  there  was  nothing  especially 
significant  done  in  the  line  of  religious  freedom.  In  the 
hundred  years  before  the  Revolution,  conditions  were  far 
less  tolerant  than  in  Pennsylvania  or  Rhode  Island;  but 
they  were  decidedly  better  than  in  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  at  the  same  time.  In  Massachusetts,  religion  in 
those  years  possessed  a  vigor,  variety,  breadth  and  pro- 
gressive spirit,  which  were  not  then  found  in  the  churches 

256 


Appendia^ 

in  the  region  of  the  Hudson  River.  No  man  arose  in  that 
Colony  with  a  plea  for  religious  liberty  comparable  to  that 
made  by  Roger  Williams.  No  writer  there  advocated 
civil  and  religious  rights  with  the  power  and  eloquence  of 
John  Wise.  When  the  restrictions  were  abolished  in  the 
midst  of  the  political  upheaval  which  gave  us  Independence 
and  Nationality,  there  were  no  great  leaders  such  as  Jeffer- 
son and  Madison  in  Virginia. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

This  Colony  was  fortunate  in  its  beginnings  (1682).  At 
that  time  there  were  many  English  settlements  for  nearly 
a  thousand  miles  along  the  Atlantic  Coast,  some  large  and 
prosperous.  The  serious  Indian  troubles  had  ceased.  The 
settlers  of  the  Colony  were  superior  people :  the  Quakers, 
who  were  in  a  large  majority,  had  become  a  sedate  and 
orderly  folk.  Its  founder,  William  Penn,  was  a  notable 
man  of  wide  experience,  high  in  the  esteem  of  the  King, 
Charles  II.,  with  noble  qualities  of  character.  He  gave  a 
large  measure  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  to  the  common- 
wealth which  he  established. 

Religious  toleration  was  secured  in  the  amplest  form  to 
all  who  professed  belief  in  God.  But  this  was  far  short  of 
religious  equality.  The  following  statement  was  placed 
at  the  beginning  of  "The  Great  Law,"  which  Penn  pro- 
posed and  the  First  Assembly  approved  at  Chester,  in 
December,  1682 :  "That  no  person,  now  or  hereafter  living 
in  the  province,  who  shall  confess  one  Almighty  God  to  be 
Creator  .  .  .  shall  in  anj^se,  be  molested  or  prejudiced 
for  his  or  her  conscientious  persuasion  or  practice,  nor 
shall  he  or  she,  at  any  time,  be  compelled  to  frequent  or 
maintain  any  religious  worship,  place  or  ministry,  contrary 
to  his  or  her  mind,  but  shall  freely  and  fully  enjoy  his  or 

257 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

her  liberty  in  that  respect,  without  any  interruption  or 
reflection."  However,  a  profession  of  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion was  made  a  necessary  qualification  for  the  exercise 
of  the  franchise  or  the  holding  of  ofi&ce.  By  a  law  operative 
from  1703  to  1776  (enacted  against  the  judgment  of  Penn) 
to  hold  office  a  man  had  to  repudiate  Mass  and  Virgin 
Mary,  and  profess  a  belief  in  the  Trinity  and  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible.  Franklin  kept  such  a  provision  out  of 
the  Constitution  of  1776.  By  a  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion \of  1790  (still  in  force)  a  man  to  hold  office  must 
declare  his  belief  in  God  and  in  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments.  What  Penn  incorporated  into  law  was 
a  principle  far  narrower  than  what  Roger  Williams  ad- 
vocated a  generation  before  in  The  Bloudy  Tenent  of 
Persecution. 

As  the  years  passed,  this  Colony  demonstrated,  by  actual 
results,  the  vast  advantages  of  a  large  degree  of  religious 
freedom:  a  practical  separation  of  Church  and  State.  It 
exerted  a  profound  influence  both  north  and  south:  its 
growth  was  rapid  and  its  peaceableness  was  impressive. 
Here,  on  a  large  platform,  was  demonstrated  the  superior- 
ity of  the  principles  which  Robert  Browne  had  taught  and 
which  the  Pilgrims  had  practiced  in  the  face  of  many  ob- 
stacles on  a  narrower  stage.  It  began  to  be  seen,  far  and 
wide,  how  the  Martyrdom  of  Man  could  and  must  be 
stopped.  When,  a  century  later,  the  time  came  for  the 
making  of  a  National  Constitution,  the  Quaker  Influence, 
of  which  Pennsylvania  was  the  chief  representative,  helped 
mightily  to  incorporate  into  it  guarantees  of  religious 
freedom.  Quakers  in  other  Colonies,  especially  Rhode 
Island,  New  Jersey,  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina 
contributed  to  the  same  great  end.  In  this  respect,  it 
might  almost  be  called  a  Quaker  Document.  But,  in  this 
connection,   we    must   remember   that  they    built   on   the 

258 


Appendi{v 

foundations  broadly  laid  by  the  English  Independents,  and 
it  was  the  glory  of  the  Pilgrims,  to  have  planted  on  these 
shores,  two  generations  before,  the  same  great  standard  of 
Human  Rights. 

NORTH    CAROLINA 

The  story  of  this  Colony  for  the  first  hundred  years  and 
more  (1663-1776),  is  full  of  constant  turbulence  in  relig- 
ious affairs:  oppression,  persecution,  even  civil  war, — ^the 
"Gary  Rebellion"  (1711).  Although  there  were  no  judicial 
murders  for  heresy,  no  other  colony  had  such  continuous 
church  strife,  and  in  no  other  did  a  demand  for  religious 
liberty  play  so  prominent  a  part  as  one  of  the  producing 
causes  of  the  Revolution.  For  over  a  generation.  Dis- 
senters (Baptists,  Quakers,  Presbyterians)  really  had  no 
religious  rights. 

In  1701,  a  Vestry  Act  was  passed  which  made  the  Epis- 
copal the  Established  Church  and  put  Dissenters  on  the 
same  footing,  theoretically,  as  in  England.  And  yet,  their 
condition  soon  became  worse.  A  most  iniquitous  law  (the 
Schism  Act)  was  passed  in  England  in  1714,  which  was 
intended  to  exclude  Dissenters  from  all  positions  of  power, 
dignity  and  profit.  But  protests  were  so  numerous  and 
urgent  that  iu  1718  it  was  repealed.  It  was,  however, 
just  the  hateful  provisions  of  this  atrocious  measure  that 
the  governors  of  the  Colony  attempted  to  enforce,  backed 
by  pressure  from  London.  For  over  forty  years,  all  man- 
ner of  attempts  were  made  by  Episcopalians  to  compel  the 
Assembly  to  increase  the  power  and  authority  of  their 
church.  These  efforts  were  all  the  more  resented  because 
the  Established  Churches  were  so  incompetent  and  un- 
spiritual:  their  ministers  being  arrogant  and  profligate, — 
far  worse  than  the  people  themselves.    While  in  New  Eng- 

259 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

land  conditions  were  more  favorable  than  in  Great  Britain, 
in  North  Carolina  the  situation  was  far  worse  from  1730 
to  1770  than  in  England. 

Among  the  many  injustices  suffered  by  Dissenters,  only 
two  need  be  mentioned  here:  (a)  No  one,  however  com- 
petent in  education  or  character,  was  permitted  to  teach, 
unless  approved  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  which  closed 
to  Dissenters  the  avenue  to  greatest  usefulness,  (b)  Bap- 
tist and  Presbyterian  ministers  were  prohibited  from 
solemnizing  marriages  under  a  fine  of  £50!  These  op- 
pressive conditions  continued  up  to  the  very  eve  of  the 
Revolution. 

As  the  years  passed,  a  crisis  drew  near.  Successive 
Assemblies  became  less  responsive  to  executive  demands. 
Dissenters  increased  in  numbers,  and  they  constantly 
broadened  their  opposition.  Baptists  and  Quakers  insisted 
upon  separation  of  Church  and  State;  Presbyterians  de- 
manded their  own  rights,  but  did  not  go  so  far  as  to 
advocate  universal  freedom  in  religion.  It  became  difficult 
to  collect  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  Episcopal  Churches, 
which  consequently  languished;  and  their  clergy  fell,  more 
and  more,  into  contempt,  because  lazy  and  bigoted.  The 
growing  liberality  of  the  age,  some  sturdy  leaders  from 
New  England,  the  inevitable  reaction  against  unjust  laws 
finally  made  the  opposition  to  Episcopacy  irresistible. 

The  causes  which  precipitated  the  fight  at  Alamance 
(May  16,  1771),  claimed  to  be  the  first  real  battle  of  the 
Revolution,  were  as  much  religious  as  political.  The 
patriots  of  Mecklenburg  County,  in  September,  1775,  in- 
structed their  delegates  to  the  Halifax  Convention  to 
oppose  a  Church  Establishment:  they  demanded  religious 
as  well  as  civil  liberty.  Such  sentiments  were  widely  held 
far  outside  this  "hornets'  nest  of  the  Revolution."  This 
demand  was  repeated  the  next  year.     In  response  to  this 

260 


Appendix 

pressure,  the  Halifax  Convention  put  into  the  Constitution 
for  the  State  (Dec.  18,  1776)  an  Article  which  prohibited 
a  Religious  Establishment,  and  enacted  that  "all  persons 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  exercise  their  own  mode  of  worship" 
(Section  XXXIV).  This  Constitution  however,  granted 
the  right  to  hold  office  only  to  Protestants  (meaning  Trini- 
tarian Protestants),  thereby  excluding  Catholics,  Jews, 
Unitarians,  and  Infidels.  In  the  new  Constitution  of  1835, 
the  word  "Christian"  was  substituted  for  Protestant. 
Atheists  are  still  disqualified  from  holding  office.  Thus 
it  came  about  that,  in  preparation  for  war  with  Great 
Britain,  the  sturdy  yeomen  of  North  Carolina  also  made 
provision  for  a  large  degree  of  religious  liberty.  Church 
and  State  were  separated,  but  it  took  some  years  to  give 
the  law  a  reasonably  broad  scope,  and  even  now,  it  has 
an  unfortunate  limitation  in  word  if  not  in  practical 
application. 

VIRGINIA 

The  story  of  the  growth  of  religious  freedom  in  this 
Colony  has  peculiar  interest  because  it  presents  some 
special  features.  The  Episcopal  was  from  the  first  the 
Established  Church.  The  persecution  of  Dissenters  began 
at  an  early  date.  Gov.  Sir  Thomas  Dale  had  a  law  passed 
in  1611  which  condemned  to  death  any  man  who  denied  the 
dogma  of  the  Trinity.  It  was  never  enforced,  and  no 
bloodshed  stains  the  history  of  religious  persecution  in 
Virginia.  However,  persecutions  continued  to  be  very 
severe  for  many  years.  In  1643  a  law  was  passed  which 
permitted  only  those  to  preach  who  could  present  a  certifi- 
cate from  the  Bishop  of  London.  Long  before  this,  a  law 
had  been  enacted  which  directed  that  persons  treating 
ministers  disrespectfully  be  publicly  whipped  three  times! 

261 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

stripes,  fines,  and  imprisonment  were  frequently  in- 
flicted: Episcopacy  never  respected  the  rights  of  con- 
science in  Virginia  during  colonial  days. 

(a)  The  Congregationalists  of  Nansemond  County  were 
the  first  to  suffer.  Prominent  citizens  invited  Puritan 
ministers  from  Massachusetts  to  locate  in  their  settlements. 
Two  of  them,  however,  were  banished  about  1648.  Another, 
who  had  been  an  Anglican  and  chaplain  to  Gov.  Berkeley, 
Rev.  Thomas  Harrison,  having  turned  Puritan,  was  also 
banished:  He  went  to  England  and  became  chaplain  to 
Cromwell.  These  and  similar  persecutions  practically  put 
an  end  to  Puritanism  in  the  Colony. 

(b)  The  Quakers,  who  came  about  1656,  met  with  great 
severity.  In  1660,  a  law  was  passed,  fining  the  shipmaster 
who  brought  a  Quaker  into  Virginia  the  sum  of  £100. 
The  poor  Quaker  was  kept  in  jail  until  he  agreed  to  leave 
the  Colony ;  and,  if  he  returned  a  second  time,  he  was  to  be 
treated  as  a  felon.  In  1663,  a  law  was  enacted,  providing 
that,  if  five  or  more  adult  Quakers  assembled  anywhere, 
they  were  to  be  fined :  for  the  first  offense,  200  pounds  of 
tobacco ;  for  the  second,  500 ;  and  for  the  third,  they  were 
to  be  banished.  A  person  harboring  a  Quaker  preacher 
over  night  was  fined  500  pounds  of  tobacco.  About  the 
same  time  a  law  was  passed,  —  which  would  apply  to 
Quakers, — imposing  a  fine  of  2,000  pounds  upon  a  man 
who  refused  to  have  his  child  baptised. 

(c)  The  Baptists  settled  in  Virginia  about  1714  and  en- 
dured great  hardships  for  over  sixty  years.  The  story  is 
long  and  revolting.  But  their  churches  rapidly  multiplied 
under  persecution :  the  movement  spread  among  the  "plain 
people."  What  most  astonishes  the  reader  today  is  the 
fact  that  Baptist  ministers  continued  to  be  imprisoned 
down  to  the  very  eve  of  the  Revolution.  Dr.  Hawks,  the 
learned   Episcopal   historian,   comments   upon  these    per- 

262 


AppendiiV 

secutions  of  the  Baptists:  "They  were  beaten  and  impris- 
oned; and  cruelty  taxed  its  ingenuity  to  devise  new  modes 
of  punishment  and  annoyance"  (Prot.  Epis.  Ch.  in  Vir- 
ginia, 121).  In  1768,  Patrick  Henry  rode  fifty  miles  to 
defend  three  Baptist  ministers  for  "preaching  the  Gospel 
unlawfully!"  James  Madison,  in  writing  (June  24,  1774) 
to  a  friend — Wm.  Bradford,  Jr.,  in  Philadelphia, — stated 
that  there  were  then  six  Baptist  ministers  in  jail  in  one 
neighboring  county! 

(d)  Soon  after  the  Baptists,  came  the  Presbyterians 
(1732),  a  resolute,  orderly,  and  orthodox  people.  As  they 
lived,  at  first,  chiefly  by  themselves  in  a  somewhat  frontier 
valley  and  were  less  aggressive  in  their  methods  than  the 
Baptists,  they  did  not,  for  a  time,  come  very  much  into 
conflict  with  the  law.  The  case  of  a  layman,  Samuel 
Morris,  is,  however,  significant.  He  began  about  1743, 
before  he  became  a  Presbyterian,  to  give  Bible-readings 
wherever  he  could  find  a  congregation.  For  this  impiety, 
so  shocking  to  the  Episcopal  clergy,  he  was  fined  twenty 
times  in  half  that  number  of  years! 

The  influences  which  led  to  the  triumph  of  religious 
liberty  in  Virginia  were  chiefly  these:  (a)  The  constant 
pressure  of  Dissenters  who  vigorously  demanded  their 
rights.  The  Quakers  and  Baptists,  there  as  elsewhere,  tes- 
tified in  behalf  of  liberty  of  conscience:  complete  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State.  Presbyterians  sought  toleration 
but  came,  as  a  body,  more  slowly  and  less  unanimously  to 
belief  in  complete  religious  liberty  for  all  men.  The 
Presbyterians,  especially  of  Hanover  Presbytery  (organized 
1755)  did,  on  the  whole,  noble  service  for  this  cause. 

But  a  very  erroneous  claim  for  them  is  made  by  Rev. 
Dr.  Thomas  Smyth  (1843) :  "Presbyterians  forced  upon  the 
State  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  independence  between 
Christianity  and  the  civil  power"  (Works:  Vol.  III.,  Chap. 

,263 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

II.,  Sec.  XI).  Calvin  in  Geneva  and  Knox  in  Scotland 
contradict  this  claim.  The  Presbyterians  in  the  English 
Commonwealth  bitterly  opposed  even  toleration.  Their 
influence  in  New  England  was  decisively  against  religious 
liberty  and  progress.  The  truth  respecting  their  influence 
in  Virginia  will  shortly  appear  in  describing  the  work  of 
Madison,  to  whom  Dr.  Smyth  does  not  refer;  and  that  of 
Jefferson,  whom  he  treats  with  contempt! 

(b)  The  beneflts  of  religious  liberty  as  demonstrated 
in  the  neighboring  Colonies  had  a  profound  influence  upon 
the  people  of  Virginia.  This  was  especially  true  in  the 
case  of  Pennsylvania. 

(c)  The  inevitable  reaction  against  the  injustice  suffered 
by  Dissenters,  who  had  become  a  majority  in  the  Colony, 
was  intensified  by  the  profligacy  of  the  Episcopal  clergy, 
who,  as  a  rule,  in  those  years,  spent  the  most  of  their  time 
in  hunting,  drinking,  gambling,  and  horse-racing. 

(d)  The  new  and  profound  influences  to  enter  into  the 
problem, — English  Independency  and  French  Rationalism, 
operated  chiefly  through  Thomas  Jefferson  (1743-1826), 
and  James  Madison  (1751-1836).  Jefferson  was  a  great 
admirer  of  Locke  and  Voltaire;  both  advocates,  not  simply 
of  toleration  but  of  widest  religious  freedom.  The  modem, 
emancipating  Ideal,  advocated  by  Robert  Browne,  and 
made  an  organic  policy  by  Independents  and  Quakers  and 
Baptists,  entered  into  American  affairs  through  these  great 
political  leaders,  both  by  way  of  these  churches  in  their 
neighborhood  and  also  by  way  of  the  luminous  pages  of 
these  great  teachers  whom  they  studied  with  admiration. 

When  the  Assembly  of  Virginia  met  in  the  Spring  of 
1776,  Dissenters  presented  memorials  demanding  their 
rights.  For  some  years  similar  petitions  had  been  ignored. 
Now  it  was  different.  Protests  against  church  tithes  and 
tyrannies,  as  well  as  against  Stamp  Acts,  were  parts  of 

264 


Appendix 

the  rising  patriotism.  A  memorial  of  special  interest  came 
from  the  Hanover  Presbytery  (written  by  Rev.  Caleb 
Wallace) :  not  original  but  significant,  for  it  sounded  a 
comparatively  new  note  in  that  part  of  America, — a  de- 
mand for  universal  religious  freedom:  a  complete  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State. 

James  Madison  was  a  new  member,  an  unknown  man  of 
twenty-five.  Though  reared  in  an  Episcopal  family,  his 
heart  had  hated  persecution  for  some  years :  since  as  a  lad 
he  stood  with  his  father  and  heard  a  pious  Baptist  minister 
preach  through  an  open  jail  window  to  a  company  outside : 
imprisoned  for  preaching  the  Gospel  unlawfully!  Two 
years  before  he  had  written:  "This  vexes  me  the  worst  of 
anything  whatever."  Patrick  Henry,  nominally  an  Epis- 
copalian but  an  advocate  of  toleration,  had  written  a 
resolution,  following  mainly  the  language  used  by  the 
Independents  in  a  statement  presented  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly  some  hundred  and  thirty  years  before.  The 
resolution  (to  be  included  in  the  Bill  of  Rights)  was  in- 
troduced by  George  Mason,  the  leader  of  the  Assembly. 
In  it  was  the  statement :  "All  men  should  enjoy  the  fullest 
toleration.''  But  Madison  protested  that  what  was  needed 
was  not  "toleration,"  but  equal  religious  rights  for  aU. 
He  presented  an  amendment:  dropping  these  words  and 
adding  the  statement:  "No  man  or  class  of  men  ought, 
on  account  of  religion,  to  be  invested  with  peculiar  emolu- 
ments or  privileges  nor  subjected  to  any  penalties  or  dis- 
abilities." This  meant  separation  of  Church  and  State: 
complete  religious  liberty. 

The  Assembly,  however,  was  not  ready  for  so  radical 
a  measure.  But,  as  Madison  often  insisted,  had  his 
amendment  been  adopted,  Virginia  would  have  been  saved 
ten  years  of  bitter  controversy  on  this  subject.  As  finally 
passed  unanimously  (June  12,  1776),  Article  XVI.  of  the 

265 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

Bill  of  Rights  reads:  "That  religion,  or  the  duty  we  owe 
our  Creator,  and  the  manner  of  discharging  it,  can  be 
directed  only  by  reason  and  conviction,  not  by  force  or 
violence,  and  therefore  all  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the 
free  exercise  of  religion  according  to  the  dictates  of  con- 
science; and  that  it  is  the  mutual  duty  of  all  to  practice 
Christian  forbearance,  love,  and  charity  toward  each 
other."  This  statement  was  adopted,  with  slight  changes, 
by  Conventions  in  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and  other 
states.  This  is,  indeed,  a  noble  declaration.  But,  on  the 
main  point, — separation  of  Church  and  State, — it  was  not 
sufficiently  clear;  far  less  satisfactory  than  the  language 
used  by  Madison.     It  left  the  problem  in  confusion. 

When  the  Assembly  met  the  following  autumn,  peti- 
tions on  this  subject  were  numerous,  and  something  more 
had  to  be  done.  The  matter  was  handed  over  to  a  com- 
mittee of  nineteen  members,  one  of  whom  was  Thomas 
Jefferson,  who  over  three  months  before  had  written  our 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Jefferson  had  long  occupied 
a  position  well  described  in  these  words,  written  somewhat 
later :  "What  has  been  the  effect  of  coercion  [in  religion]  ? 
To  make  one-half  the  world  fools  and  the  other  half 
hypocrites"   (Notes  on  Virginia,  p.  199.  1784). 

The  Committee  struggled  for  two  months  with  this 
problem.  Of  these  labors  Jefferson  wrote:  "The  severest 
contests  in  which  I  have  ever  been  engaged."  The  Dis- 
senters themselves  were  not  united;  and  they  were  in  a 
minority  in  the  Assembly,  although  they  had  a  popular 
majority  in  the  State.  But  many  looked  no  farther  than 
mere  "toleration."  However,  on  Dec.  5,  1776,  a  Bill  was 
passed  with  two  important  provisions :  One  repealed  many 
laws  against  Dissenters;  and  the  other  temporarily 
exempted  Dissenters  from  church  taxes.  The  confusion 
that  then  existed  in  the  popular  mind  is  shown  by  the 

.260 


Appendix 

fact  that  it  was  left  an  open  question  whether  the  perma- 
nent plan  for  the  support  of  all  churches  should  be  by 
public  tax  or  by  voluntary  contribution.  The  debate  went 
on  until  1779,  when  the  Episcopal  Church  was  virtually 
disestablished. 

So  great  was  the  disorder  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution, 
that  all  religious  bodies  found  themselves  in  great  distress. 
There  was  a  general  feeling  that  something  vigorous  must 
be  done.  The  policy  of  "a  general  assessment"  for  the 
support  of  religion  began  to  be  widely  discussed.  Early 
in  the  autumn  of  1784,  Patrick  Henry  introduced  a  reso- 
lution favoring  such  a  policy,  and  it  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  47  to  32, — so  little  did  many  then  care  for  the 
principle  which  had  been  enacted  into  law,  eight  years 
before,  in  Article  XVI.  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Many 
Dissenters  sent  in  approving  petitions:  notably  one  from 
the  United  Clergy  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  At  first, 
Presbyterian  ministers  in  general  favored  the  plan:  a 
fact  which  drew  from  Madison, — for  a  time  almost  the 
only  outspoken  opponent, — ^this  stinging  rebuke:  "I  do 
not  know  a  more  shameful  contrast  than  might  be 
found  between  their  memorials  on  the  latter  [1784] 
and  former  occasion'  [1776]"  (Letter  to  Monroe,  April 
12,  1785).  In  these  words,  he  had  especial  reference  to 
the  fact  that  the  Hanover  Presbytery,  which  had  pleaded  so 
earnestly  in  1776  for  religious  liberty,  turned  about,  and  in 
October,  1784,  petitioned  for  a  state  tax  to  support  the 
churches!  Even  the  great  Washington,  usually  so  clear 
and  broad,  approved,  as  also  did  John  Marshall! 

Madison  kept  his  head  and  fought  for  time.  He  and 
his  friends  secured  a  postponement.  Meanwhile,  during  a 
recess  of  the  Assembly,  early  the  next  year,  at  the  urgent 
request  of  a  few  friends  he  prepared  a  powerful  appeal 
to  the  people  of  the  State  (Memorial  and  Remonstrance), 

267 


The  Winning  of  Religious  Liberty 

which  was  widely  circulated.  It  is  a  great  historic  doea- 
ment,  containing  about  3,000  words.  Its  argument  for 
complete  religious  liberty, — clear,  forcible,  broad, — has 
never  been  surpassed.  It  made  a  profound  impression, 
especially  upon  laymen :  those  in  the  Presbyterian  churches 
compelled  their  ministers  to  change  front.  And  as  Madison 
wrote  some  years  later  (Nov.,  1826)  to  Lafayette:  "The 
projected  innovation  was  crushed." 

In  1779  (June  13),  Jefferson,  in  presenting  a  Code  of 
Laws  for  the  State,  had  proposed  "A  Bill  for  Establishing 
Religious  Freedom,"  but  for  six  years  it  received  practi- 
cally no  attention.  This  Madison  now  brought  to  the 
front.  The  people  had  spoken  in  response  to  his  "Me- 
morial" and  the  Bill,  substantially  as  prepared  by  Jeffer- 
son, became  a  law:  passed  by  the  Assembly  Dec.  17,  1785, 
by  vote  of  74  to  20:  by  the  Senate  on  Dec.  23.  The 
important  part  is  Section  II.,  which  reads  as  follows: 

"Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly,  that 
no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  frequent  or  support  any 
religious  worship,  place,  or  ministry  whatsoever,  nor  shall 
be  enforced,  restrained,  molested,  or  burdened  in  his  body 
or  goods,  nor  shall  otherwise  suffer  on  account  of  his 
religious  opinions  or  belief;  but  that  all  men  shall  be 
free  to  profess,  and  by  argument  to  maintain,  their  opin- 
ions in  matters  of  religion,  and  that  the  same  shall  in  no 
wise  diminish,  enlarge  or  affect  their  civil  capacities." 

The  broad  intention  of  the  Assembly  in  passing  this  Bill, 
is  shown  by  the  fact,  stated  by  Jefferson  (who  was  then 
U.  S.  Minister  to  France),  that  when  a  member  proposed 
to  insert  "Jesus  Christ"  in  the  Preamble,  so  limiting  its 
scope  to  Christians,  he  was  rebuked  by  "a  great  majority" 
(Ford's  Jefferson,  I.,  62).  As  Jefferson  contended,  this 
vote  showed  that  the  Assembly  demanded  protection  alike 

268 


Appendix 

for  Jew  and  Gentile,  Christians,  Mohammedans,  Hindoos, 
and  Infidels. 

No  wonder  that  Jefferson  took  pride  in  the  authorship 
of  this  Bill,  ranking  it  with  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  Founding  of  the  University  of  Virginia,  as  the 
three  things  worthy  of  mention  on  his  monument.  And  it 
is  good  to  record  that  he  generously  shared  this  honor 
with  his  younger  associate,  Madison.  Jefferson,  writing 
from  Paris  to  Madison  (Dec.  16,  1786),  stated  that  re- 
prints of  this  Bill  had  made  a  profound  impression  in 
Europe. 

This  was  the  most  notable  victory  won  for  Religious 
Freedom,  up  to  that  time,  in  the  whole  world.  Rhode 
Island  is  hardly  an  exception.  However,  it  was  not  broader 
than  the  position  of  Roger  Williams  himself  as  stated  in 
"Bloudy  Tenent"  (Preface).  But  far  broader  than  the 
Constitution  of  such  a  progressive  State  as  Pennsylvania, 
made  in  1790,  which  limited  citizenship  to  those  who  "ac- 
knowledge the  being  of  God  and  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishment."  While  the  Maryland  Constitution  of 
1851  (Art.  34)  permitted  Jews  and  others  to  hold  office 
only  on  condition  that  they  declared  their  belief  in  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments! 


269 


Date  Due 

fACULT 

r 

#  «2  "4 

S 

W  ^d    , 

^:    ■     ■:     m 

.•  .  t?. 

MY  31  4? 

,.r  3-04 

MYb-'54 

iTAPtlt  TV 

f  Al»Ul  1  ' 

7t2S22.;^M 

itj^ 

n^Aiil    r    1 

!V 

??^ 

m 

f) 

I  r 


\  t  • 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01032  0929 


K  frs-<. 


■  'J''"' 

:'    ';,;^ri.-' 

.•,..■! 

-^)-^^ 

-.t;\y  • 

",*."■. ".-'iT    , 

':  """ 

??i-;i'',^ 

t.    >'~^.. 

■-m 

'     h' 

VP^^'J^j-i;; 

-r'.^*-'* 

^■^s 

•,'•',;; 

.-,-;.-v/,'  '• 

\  •.•; 

m 

■"=r^.''- 

m 

m 

-;>'|^ ' 

\^ff. 

•v.'-vtrwrv 

:tl<- 

^^^^M 

^?feirv^ 

J^i 

m 

